Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Guildford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

London Power Company Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Medway Conservancy Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Metropolitan Electric Supply Company Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Port of London Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At the outset I desire to make one thing perfectly clear, and that is that this Bill is not introduced to satisfy any public clamour for the opportunity to give vindictive sentences in any particular case. Neither is it a Bill designed to raise a purely sex question, or as to the punishment of purely sex offences. There is no desire on the part of those promoting the Bill to give to the Courts power to increase a sentence in respect of any individual offence. We are, therefore, not raising the very thorny question as to whether present punishments for individual offences are or are not adequate. Neither are we raising that much more thorny question as to whether there should be or should not be corporal punishment in respect of certain offences. To wander into those fields is really to bring oneself straight away into a hornets' nest, to bring oneself into an atmosphere of controversy which is of a very keen character and in which there are widely differing opinions.
One result of the promotion of this Bill has been that, I have received a most extraordinarily diversified correspondence. It is quite obvious that on the question of punishment, as to the kind of punishment and its extension for particular offences, there are very widely different, views. If I may illustrate the hornets' nest that I hope I have avoided, I would mention that my correspondence has differed as widely as this: On the one hand I have had an obliging letter from one man who, to show his detestation of sexual offences, offered, as he said, quite willingly, to execute sexual offenders to the tune of 50 a day, provided that he was paid the large remuneration of a shilling per head. Coupled with him are a number of other and well-meaning people who think that no punishment that the law can devise is too severe and no period of imprisonment too extended for the person who
commits a sexual offence, no matter how small or serious that offence may be. On the other hand, there are people who express the view that sexual offences of all kinds should go completely unpunished. Those are totally different points of view, it is true. One lady wrote and explained to me that the man who murdered his wives in a bath was led to that by reason of the fact that before he was born, his mother had conceived the idea of getting rid of him in a bath when he was born, but failed to carry out her intention. There are others who have gravely suggested that sexual offences should go unpunished, and one correspondent went so far as to suggest that a man, who is well known apparently under the name of Hayley Morriss, was really a species of early Christian martyr. I need hardly say that the last two letters were unsigned, and, as far as I can see there was nothing in the letters that would lead to the detection of the writers; otherwise I think both those orrespondents ought to be very carefully watched.
The real reason for this Bill is right away from any controversy of that kind. The occasion has arisen, it is true, in a case concerning sexual offences. But anyone who reads the Lord Chief Justice's words in dealing with the Hayley Morriss case will see that his words had a far wider application than merely the case which was before him. His suggestion, which was published in his judgment in that case, was this: That the case brought to light a defect in our criminal law that that defect was that where a man had committed a multiplicity of offences and had been found guilty of them, owing to the restrictions which our practice puts on cumulative terms of imprisonment, there was no alternative which allowed the court to sentence the man to an adequate period of detention. That difficulty arose in a sexual case, but it is by no means confined to sexual cases, and there are other cases in which the power of alternative detention is of extreme importance. It is to deal with that one point of principle that I have introduced this Bill.
If one may trace quite briefly the way in which this matter arises, the House will see how necessary the alternative is. As our law is now, where the punishment for crime by Statute is penal servitude there is express statutory provision in
those cases which, in the opinion of the court, do not merit penal servitude, for imprisonment with or without hard labour to be inflicted. But there is no corresponding provision in the case of those offences where by Statute imprisonment only is the sentence designate. There are reasons possibly, or those were reasons originally, for that view. No doubt many years ago a sentence of two years' hard labour, which has always been recognised as the maximum, was an extremely severe sentence. In fact, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that in the early days of imprisonment with hard labour the man who was able to serve a sentence of two years' hard labour came out a completely broken man. But the rigours of imprisonment with hard labour have been very extensively mitigated, and to-day imprisonment with hard labour is nothing like as severe a punishment as it was.
Notwithstanding the mitigation in the nature of the punishment, however, it has always been, and is still thought undesirable, that a man should be kept to the close confinement of a local prison for a period beyond two years. In fact, such a sentence, with remissions, is actually a sentence of one year and eight months, but it may involve a total period of two years. There are offences in respect of which the only punishment prescribed by Statute is imprisonment with or without hard labour, and in accordance with our practice, no matter how many offences a man may be convicted of at any particular time, the Courts always set themselves against inflicting cumulative periods of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, although they have in theory the right to do so. There is, no doubt, considerable justification for that attitude. On the other hand, it is obvious that a power which is so limited by practice does not enable the Courts to do full justice in cases involving a number, of offences, and clearly requiring, if justice is to be done, some period of prolonged detention. It is with cases of that class that this Bill deals, and in order that justice may be done in such cases I submit it is absolutely necessary that some such course should be adopted as proposed in the Bill.
What are the types of offences? It is true that many of them come under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.
These are sexual offences, some of a less degree and some of an extremely serious character. They are all offences which demand very careful treatment. They may vary very much. They may be nothing more than a casual lapse, serious perhaps in character but not the kind of lapse for which a judge would give an extended period of imprisonment. There may be circumstances in the Commission of the offence which make it obvious that a severe sentence would be out of all proportion. On the other hand, there are some of those offences for which, within reason, it is almost impossible to prescribe an adequate punishment—some of the offences against children particularly, where not only serious moral injury is done but where serious physical injury is done and where, by the imparting of disease, very serious and continued injury to health is inflicted upon the child. Such cases obviously call for very severe punishment. It is true I am not attempting in this Bill to provide extended punishment for individual offences in those cases and I think there is this to be said from that point of view. Where merely one offence is charged against a person, particularly where that offence is an isolated one, then a short sharp sentence, is probably the best way of bringing the offender to a sense of what is right and possibly permitting him afterwards to take the straight and the right path.
On the other hand, where you have—as unfortunately have from time to time—cases where a man is charge not with one offence but with a series of offences, then, clearly, a short period of detention has no real relation either to the enormity of the offences or the necessity of protecting the community from a man of that kind. It is in cases of that class that this Bill will, I venture to think, be of great value. Apart from the question of punishment, one must recognise that where you find a series of offences of this nature, it is impossible to say that there is not something of an abnormal character about the person who commits them. At present, as far as I know, our law provides no special means of dealing with people of abnormal character who are sane enough to know that the act they are committing is wrongful. The only effective way of dealing with people of that type, when they are disclosed by the commission of offences of this kind, is some system of
prolonged detention which may give an opportunity to judge of their abnormality of character and may also be a, protection to the public against the danger of such people being at large.
There is another class of offence which will come within this Bill. I am only taking two main types of offence, though there are several miscellaneous offences which will come within it, as to which very much the same principle applies. There is one other type which is all too prevalent, and which certainly demands increased powers of punishment at the present time. These are cases of fraud, some under the Bankruptcy Acts, some under other Statutes, which if the offences are isolated probably do not demand serious punishment, but which call for more serious treatment when there is a series of such offences. I desire to point out at this stage that bankruptcy offences are, I understand, being made the subject of recommendations by particular committees, and I do not propose to infringe upon the possible recommendations of those committees, I am merely dealing with those cases where, at present, the maximum punishment is imprisonment only. There are cases, both under the Bankruptcy Act and under the Debtors Act, where the maximum punishment is two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and in some cases where it is only one year's imprisonment—I think under the Debtors Act it is one year's imprisonment with hard labour. This offence is known as obtaining credit by fraud other than false pretences. It is an offence where you cannot attribute the obtaining of a credit or of money to any partimilar false statement, but where the credit or the money is obtained by a fraudulent system. It is one of those offences which strikes at the root of commercial morality.
At, present the maximum punishment for any one offence is limited, as I have described, and yet almost every Assizes and a great many quarter sessions disclose indictments against people charged with offences of this character on sometimes as many as ten or even twenty countis. A man may be convicted of having on some ten or twenty occasions obtained credit by fraud other than false pretences and yet, notwithstanding, the fact that these offences disclose carefully
thought-out, systematic, depredations upon the commercial community, the total sentence that can be given is two years' imprisonment with hard labour at the present time. This Bill will enable that type of offence to be dealt with in an adequate fashion, and may, in that way, result in some diminution of commercial frauds, which are at present far too extensive. I can conceive that there may be some who will say that we have set no limit, to the Bill, and that in cases of ten or twenty counts the Bill will allow penal servitude for 20 or, if may he, 30 or 40 years. I recognise that defect in the Bill as drawn, but there will be no difficulty in the matter, and I should certainly welcome a suggestion that there should be, a limit, in regard to cases tried at Assizes, of, say, seven or term years' penal servitude, and, in regard to cases tried at Quarter Sessions, of five years' penal servitude. While I think it is well to have a maximum of ten years, one knows that in rraetice the maximum would very rarely indeed, and only in a very flagrant case, be inflicted. At any rate, I think some limit of that kind should be embodied in the Bill.
I do not think it is necessary to enlarge upon the Bill further. It gives that alternative which at present is so necessary. After all, penalties which are inflicted upon criminals must, in my submission, be definitely punitive in character. They should also, when opportunity and when the reason arises, be deterrent to others but one thing is absolutely important, and that is that penalties should not be irregular or capricious, should not be uncertain, and certainly should not be out of proportion to the offences which are committed. I would also add, for fear of being misunderstood, one other general principle with regard to punishment., and that is that no punishment should be so severe as in any way to deprive the offender, either by breaking his spirit or otherwise, of the chance of recovering his character, if there is the slighuest opportunity or evidence that he is ever going to try to do so. At the same time, when one has a series of offences, do not regard punishment as the vindication of society—conviction is that—at any rate, there would be an opportunity to the Court of protecting the public by confining the offender for a reasonable time so as to
prevent further depredations upon the community. I do not desire to say any more. This Bill is, I hope, absolutely non-contentious in character, and certainly it is absolutely non-political in every sense of the word, but I do hope the House will regard it as a small, but useful, contribution to our legislation, and in that hope I beg to move its Second Reading.

Mr. J. A. HAWKE: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so because, in my belief, the provisions of this Bill are such as to remedy what is a defect in the machinery of administration of our criminal law. Before I endeavour to deal with the reasons which bring me to that conclusion, I would like to say that it is with considerable satisfaction that I heard what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) said as to the object of this Bill, and his disclaimer that it was intended to be directed against sexual offences along. When one comes to deal with sexual offences, whatever one's personal views may be as to the heinousness of them, one is often met by an objection, which was taken in this House as long ago as 1885, when that great remedial Measure, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, was undergoing its Second Reading, that when you are dealing with sexual offences you are always leaving open an opportunity which should not exist for extortion and misrepresentation. Therefore, as I said, it was with satisfaction that I heard my hon. and learned Friend point out that this Bill is general in its character, dealing not only with offences of that class, but with offences of other classes, to some of which may hon. and learned Friend referred.
There is a general principle underlying this Bill, one form of which is this, that the repetition of offences by an offender sometimes means something more than mere additions to the sum total of the individual offence. An isolated offence may be explained. It may be the result of temptation; it may be the result of many circumstances; there may be surrounding facts which make an isolated case almost venial, but when you come to find that a person who has so offended once is offending again for a second and perhaps a third
and a fourth time, I suggest that that indicates a condition of mind which shows deliberation or a total inability to regard the social duties of a country governed as we are. From that point of view, one has to ask oneself the question: How are you to deal with persons who are subject either to the wicked and cruel mind which will deliberately commit criminal offences for the sake of mere self-indulgence or greed, or with persons who have, without being deficient mentally, such an inability as to be unable to avoid the results of temptation? My hon. and learned Friend referred to the possibility of inflicting consecutive sentences. I believe he was right in saying that, speaking generally, when it comes to sentences of any substantial length, the infliction of consecutive sentences is discouraged by the Courts, and it is certainly true that it has been laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal with no uncertain voice that, once a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for two years has been inflicted, for any offence, no, other sentence, shall be inflicted, to follow it which has as part of its constituents an order for hard labour.
I do not want to weary the House with the citation of cases that have been heard in the Courts, but this principle was laid down in one case in a very striking way. There was, some years ago, in 1916, the case of a man called Goldstein, who was prosecuted at different times for two offences. The first of those offences was the procuration of a young woman, for which offence he was awarded a sentence of two years' hard labour, and no complaint, so far as I know, was ever made of the justice of that sentence. He was shortly afterwards indicted for another offence, an offence which may vary in its incidence, and in its character. He was indicted for being an incorrigible rogue. For that offence he was ordered to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 12 months, to follow the previous sentence. He was kept, therefore, at hard labour for three years. I believe there is one case on the Statute Book in which a sentence of three years with hard labour can still be inflicted. I have never known of a case where it has been done, and I doubt whether any of my hon. and learned Friends could point out any such case, because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, it is generally accepted that a sentence
of two years with hard labour, in spite of the present mitigations of imprisonment, is as much as any man can bear. But the point I wish to make is that in this particular case, before any discussion had taken place as to the righteousness of the sentence, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Reading, as soon as he was told of the nature of the two sentences, said, "The Court will not allow that sentence to stand." Subsequently, in his judgment he dealt with this much more fully.
So one can accept the principle that, generally speaking whatever the nature of the offence may be, no prolonged sentence of that class will be accepted by the Court of Criminal Appeal. My hon. and learned Friend more than once in his speech pointed out that the principal object of punishment was that it should act as a deterrent. There are many principles underlying the object of punishment, but there is one other which, in my humble opinion, has to be carefully considered in regard to this Bill. If we come back to the offender who, I assumed a little while ago, is offending not for the first, second, or third time, but even more, and is doing so deliberately, thoroughly understanding his position, taking the risks of his action, against such a man the public has to be protected, and at times there are cases of such a nature that the only protection you can give to the public against the offenders is seclusion for a long period. That being so, if length of sentence is sometimes wanted, and no length of sentence can be obtained except by penal servitude, what are we to do in cases where penal servitude is not permitted by the law? We had a case only the other day—my hon. and learned Friend mentioned it—of an individual against whom offences of such a nature were proved that a very learned and experienced Judge felt that the sentence he could give for any one offence—two years' hard labour was insufficient. He inflicted a sentence of two years' hard labour, to be followed by one year's ordinary imprisonment without hard labour. I venture to think that if that learned Judge had had the opportunity of ordering a sentence of penal servitude, he would have protected the public for the time he thought necessary, and—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can tell
us more than I can tell the House about this—perhaps a sentence, when you leave its length out of consideration, much more merciful in its nature than a sentence of hard labour with ordinary imprisonment.
Those are some of the reasons why I suggest that this Bill should be accepted by the House. I have tried to think out for myself what objections there can be to this Bill. Speaking as I do at this period of the Debate, when, of course, I have heard no objections to it, if there be any, I have to fall back on such considerations as I find in ordinary conversation among people who are interested in this subject, and I want to deal with some of the objections that might be taken. Before I do so, I hope I am in order in expressing the hope that this discussion will not be limited to hon. Members professionally engaged, as my hon. and learned Friend and I. Social workers there are who know as much about imprisonment, and perhaps more than we do, because they get the opportunity, which may be denied to some of us, or, at any rate, they have a greater opportunity than we have, of going into prisons and seeing prisoners. I hope we shall get some contributions to the Debate from hon. Members having such experience. I take it, it is the duty of any member of my profession who has the opportunity, to give the House such assistance as he can from his own experience. But I should be sorry if our consideration of this Bill were confined to the experience of those who merely practise in Assize Courts or Courts of Sessions.
I have endeavoured to pick out what objections there can be to this Bill, and the first I have heard suggested is that some offences are in their nature comparatively venial, but that if you allow them to render offenders liable upon repetition to sentences of penal servitude, you are raising those offences from one class into an entirely different class. A second objection that I have heard is that this Bill may open the door to possibilities of ferocity of sentence, especially when we remember that a considerable part of our criminal law is administered sometimes by men who have no great technical experience. A third objection that might be taken is that changes of the law affecting the
liberty of the subject should not be embarked upon without long-continued examination, and certainly not as a consequence of any popular clamour which may arise out of one isolated, individual case. The fourth objection I have considered is one I now find removed by my hon. and learned Friend himself, and that is the possibility that this Bill would allow sentences to be inflicted which were practically of an unlimited nature. I take the view that that might be a serious defect in our law, and I therefore welcome the suggestion that the hon. and learned Member for Norwood made, that in Committee some proviso might be introduced into the Bill limiting the length of sentence of penal servitude which could be inflicted under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands.
I want to say a word, though I do not want to take too long, about these various objections. The first was that offences, which are in their nature trivial, are, by this Bill, to be raised into an entirely different class of offences. Frankly, I think that the only answer to that is the answer that I tried to make earlier in my speech, that unless you can say that constant repetition by one offender of the same offence, or a kindred offence, adds something to their nature beyond the mere sum total of the offences, then that objection, perhaps, is god one. The second objection made is that this Bill might lead to ferocious sentences. With that I want to be allowed to deal for a few minutes. I think most of us who have studied the history of penalisation realise that a great change has taken place in the course of the last century in regard to the subject. Within a hundred years many offences for which now, perhaps, a sentence of six, nine, or twelve months' hard labour may be inflicted were capital offences. Within my own professional recollection I can remember a time when certain offences, particular offences, such as by postmen entrusted with packets, who committed larceny, practically always resulted in a sentence of penal servitude. I do not, however, want to speak of other times, but of more recent ones. To-day most of would think in many of these cases such sentences were wholly improper. Up to 1891 there were certain offences on our Statute Book for
which no less a sentence than penal servitude could be inflicted. In 1891 that was taken off and for any offence there is no minimum sentence. It is a matter for the discretion of the Judge.
From these facts I am deducing the proposition that the trend of punishment has been to inflict shorter sentences in cases other than occasions when there is not a repetition or some peculiar cruelty in the offence committed. In the matter of shorter sentences, I think we can trust those who inflict them, and who have the duty of dealing with offenders, in inflicting what punishment they do to be actuated by the general principle that is spreading over the law. I may safely, in conclusion, put forward this point. We have now for some years had a Court of Criminal Appeal. I have endeavoured to show by citation of cases, of which my right hon. Friend knows, that the Court of Criminal Appeal is a court merciful in its nature, desirous of seeing that no improper or cruel sentence is inflicted upon any offender. I, therefore, think that I may suggest to this House that this Bill may be accepted without danger of being a victim of any of the objections with which I have already dealt. There is only one more point about what I want to say a word. I agree with the proposition that the liberty of the subject is a matter in no case and in no way to be regarded lightly. We can deal with this consideration by pointing out that in this Bill there is no creation of any new offence. There is no interference with the liberty of any person whose liberty would not already be interfered with under the present law. It is only a matter of the improvement of the conditions for dealing with offenders who may call for severe treatment. On these considerations, I beg to second the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: It is quite obvious, in my view, that this Bill must ultimately be considered by the Government. Such an important matter as increasing the liability of prison is not a matter which can possibly be decided by the Bill of a private Member. We have been told that questions affecting the constitution are matters in which the Government must take responsibility. It is quite clear that the Government must take the responsibility of seeing that this change in the law is made. I am not
saying, of course, that we cannot be very usefully engaged to-day in discussing this matter, more particularly so if we gather from the Government, what is their view. I feel that of the many of the objections which might be raised to the Bill as it stands, the strongest would be that the House should decide that this Bill in its present form should go through without the most serious consideration—for the matter is one which requires serious consideration indeed.
I admit at once that my chief objection to this Bill in its present form has been largely removed by what the Mover has said. It is a Bill for determining sentences. No Member of this House could possibly agree to a Bill for indeterminate sentences going through without careful consideration. We might have a case where the prisoner was unfortunate enough to be charged with, say, perhaps 20 offences at once, and it might well he that these sentences might amount altogether to 20 or 30 years. It would be a matter of multiplication. Therefore, whatever else is said about this Bill it is quite clear that it is absolutely essential that the maximum sentence of penal servitude to be inflicted shall be inserted in the Bill. I do not think that without that any hon. Member on this side could possibly support this Bill for a moment. I am not at all sure that the principle of preventive detention is not a sound principle. Fortunately we are not called upon to discuss this matter because it is already inserted in certain circumstances.
There are sentences of various kinds. Here, it is true, that the maximum would be arrived at in each particular case by a process of multiplication. There would be a term beyond which a sentence might extend enormously—an indeterminable sentence without restriction. One of tits things which I am most anxious about here is the view of the Government. Supposing they favour the principle of this Bill, what are to be the limitations of penal servitude under this Bill? It might be two or three years. If, on the other hand, it is said there should be power to give 15 years' penal servitude, that would be another consideration; and really we are rather in the dark. If I may say so, with all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend who moved the
Second Reading, it is in the highest degree unfortunate that we have not in the Bill any indication as to what should be the limitation of sentence. There is all the difference in the world between adding one year to the maximum of possible imprisonment and adding 20 years. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has had experience of prison administration, would agree that often penal servitude for a longer period is less hard on a prisoner than a shorter period of imprisonment. That may be an argument in favour of the substitution of penal servitude where the substitution involves the addition of one year, but when it involves the addition of possibly 20 or 5 years it is another consideration. Therefore we are giving consideration to this Bill with a most important element of it missing, namely, the limitation of the imprisonment which can be given. If this Bill be given a Second Reading, I hope it will be on the strict understanding that when it gets into Committee not only will a limitation be inserted but that we shall have some idea before we pass the Second Reading of what that limitation is going to be, for at present we are completely in the dark.
With regard to the general principle, I agree that it is an anomalous position that where we are limited by law to imprisonment for two or, very exceptionally, three years, the same limit should apply when a number of offences have been committed, because that really means that a man can commit seven offences at the same risk to himself as committing one, and we have the very excellent authority of a very eminent judge as to the need for some change in the law. Bat, as I have said, the whole matter seems to me one of very great seriousness indeed. We cannot lightly or frivolously add to the liability to imprisonment of any man, or of any class of men; the matter must be given most serious consideration; and while I think the House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for introducing this Bill I feel that the suggestion that the matter must receive very serious consideration, is one of the greatest weight, and I for one would only accept this Bill on the understanding that it really was going to receive the real and careful consideration of the Home Office and of the judiciary. It is a matter on which the
opinion of the judges needs to be sought as well as the opinion of the Home Office; and while it is a matter to be raised here for discussion, I think we ought not to go any further until, possibly, some responsible Judicial Committee has been appointed to inquire into the whole matter.
I cannot help thinking, and I feel that the hon. and learned Mover will agree with me, that it is a particular case the counts which has given rise to this Bill, and not so much a general consideration of the position, which is no case against the Bill, but while there may be a reason for agitating the question, that does not do away with the obligation to have a careful and responsible inquiry into how the matter is to be dealt with, and how far the Bill can go and I have only risen to press that upon the Home Secretary, who, I am sure, will be the first to agree that we are making here a serious change in the law. I am not at all sure that ultimately we may not have to raise the whole distinction between imprisonment and penal servitude. Just as I am not altogether satisfied with the distinction between misdemeanour and felony, I am not at all convinced that the present distinction between imprisonment and penal servitude in its present form is justified. We know that our present system of penal servitude has grown in a most curious manner, in an unscientific and an unconsidered manner, as a kind of relief from the old liability to transportation. I had occasion some time ago to go into this matter rather fully, and I was rather astonished to find that even at the present time people are still liable to transportation. No doubt the Home Secretary knows that, but we feel we can trust to his usual clemency to see that neither I nor any of my hon. Friends will be transported. The whole question of penal servitude is not the result of any considered theory. It grew out of a substitution for transportation, which, in its turn, was a substitution for capital punishment for offences which are not now liable to capital punishment, so that there is really no inherent principle in the distinction between imprisonment and penal servitude; and it is because of the present arbitrary distinction that the trouble which this Bill is designed to meet has arisen. We have an arbitrary distinction as to imprisonment which we have not
got in the case of penal servitude, and I am not sure that when my right hon. Friend comes to consider this Bill he will not find himself compelled to consider something very much wider than this Bill.
12.0 N.
This Bill involves the whole question of the relation of imprisonment on the one hand to penal servitude on the other, and I am not at all sure that this Bill ought not to be considered by the committee which I have suggested ought be set up in connection with the whole incidence of imprisonment and penal servitude, and not taken as dealing with an isolated problem which has produced the need for this Bill. I think it would be a pity to divide against the Second Reading if the Home Secretary gives us the necessary assurance, but it would be a pity to say we are not going to divide before we have heard what he says. We should take the view that we are giving a formal recognition to the fact that there are anomalies at the present time, and that the matter will be considered by competent and responsible persons. On that I would like to suggest that consideration should be given to the question whether the matter should be considered not only by the judiciary and the Home Office but by persons who, as my hon. and learned Friend the seconder of the Motion said have had experience of social work and dealing with prisoners.
My conclusion is that what is really needed is an inquiry into the whole matter of penal servitude and imprisonment. Whether this Bill would emerge from that consideration, or whether some other Bill would then be presented, I do not know, but I think it is a pity that this Bill should be passed in anything like its present form to deal with an isolated state of affairs. I think a case has been made out for the need for careful consideration, and on the assumption that the Home Secretary will not commit the House to this particular proposal I think we might welcome the Bill.
There is one other matter I wish to mention, because I wish to make it clear that there are certain observations of my hon. and learned Friend from which I dissent. It was an argument he used when he spoke, is I understood, about the curative effect of prison. He suggested
—I took down his words at the time—that
abnormality of character might need prolonged detention.
That seems to me rather a dangerous suggestion. It is quite true that many people think prison should be regarded as a kind of hospital, but what he said seemed to argue that people should remain in prison for the benefit of their souls, and it is an argument which I, for one, do not at all support. I do not know what is meant by "abnormality of character," and, speaking as a lawyer, I think it very dangerous that we should get outside the strict law and begin to speculate about abnormalities and that sort of thing. We may all think one another abnormal. Perhaps the fact that I sit on these, benches makes me think my hon. and learned Friend abnormal, and the fact that he is sitting over there may bring him to the same conclusion about myself, and each may wish to cure the other—but not by imprisonment. The point was not really necessary for my hon. Friend's argument, but as he has raised it I wish to say that I profoundly disagree. We ought to deal with this as a technical matter arising out of the confusion between imprisonment and penal servitude, and I would like the Home Secretary to deal with it in that way, and also to deal with the social aspect of the matter. I hope we shall have—I am sure we shall—a helpful suggestion from the Home Secretary as to how the matter shall be dealt with, particularly as this Bill, while in itself dealing only with one mischief which has arisen, raises very much larger issues than the particular solution here proposed for a particular need.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down and say something about the position at the moment. I do not want to be carried away by what has been said into a full discussion of the whole of our penal system, and I want to avoid going into the question of the alteration of the criminal code, at all events, at the present time. I have been making a considerable study of prisons and prison life during the past 15 months, and I
have been in very close touch with the social workers. I have come to the conclusion that it is quite possible that within a year or two it may be thought desirable to ask the House to consider the question of the existing system of criminology in this country. The Mover of this Bill has confined his observations to one particular question, and it is that question with which I will deal. This question has arisen out of a case which came before the Lord Chief Justice, and the Government are bound to take note of the statement of the Lord Chief Justice when he quite definitely said:
It could only he hoped that before a case of this dimension sfould come again for trial the legislature would have removed a blemish from penal legislation, and have given a discretion where a multiplicity of offences of a certain kind had been committed, to impose a sentence of penal servitude.
Of course that statement came before me and I may say that I have had considerable communication with the Lord Chief Justice upon it, and I have asked his lordship if he has any further communication to make with regard to this Bill. This Bill really makes no difference in the provisions of the law at the present time. Under the existing law it is quite true that consecuthse sentences of imprisonment can be given as was shown by the decision of the Lord Chief Justice. It was very largely because Lord Reading hold the same view which is apparently held by all three speakers this morning, that imprisonment with hard labour is a very much more terrible thing than penal servitude. That view arises from the distinction which is generally made between the different forms of imprisonment. It is quite true that many changes have taken place since the abolition of transportation in 1863. Originally at the beginning of the sentence such prisoners were kept alone and local prisons had to be provided in which these prisoners could be incarcerated with appropriate hard labour. When transportation which which was the duty of the executive Government was done away with, the executive Government took upon itself the duty of providing prisons and punishment for these more serious cases and they were not afterwards sent to Local prisons.
Hard labour in the sense in which it was known 20, 30 or 40 years ago does
not exist. Hard labour used to mean the crank and the treadmill. Those who have seen the old form of imprisonment are aware that this form of hard labour had brutalising effects, but that has all been done away with. I have watched prisoners at work on terms of hard labour and without hard labour and serving penal servitude, and there is no difference whatever between those forms of labour in prison. A man may be engaged in a local prison on hard labour or in one of our penal prisons at Dartmoor, Parkhurst or Maidstone. He may have been sentenced to penal servitude and yet he may be doing the same kind of work as those serving sentences of hard labour in other prisons. He may be engaged making mail bags or working in the tinsmith shop. It is true that if a prisoner is sent to Dartmoor which, by the way, is not the most popular of our prisons, he may get more outdoor work because there is more space there.

Mr. W. THORNE: There is a quarry there as well.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think any prisoner would prefer Dartmoor to other prisons on account of its outside work. With regard to what has been said about cruelty in our local prisons, that has been eliminated for a long time—[HON MEMBERS: "No!"]—at any rate cruelty in the form of hard work has been eliminated.

Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it not more a question of the length of solitary confinement in regard to some sentences, and are not some prisoners better fed than others?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not so. I have seen the food which prisoners receive, and both in regard to quantity and quality it is as good at one place as at the other. There is an impression abroad that one form of imprisonment includes solitary confinement and the other does not, and think it will be as well if I clear away that misconception. Sometimes hard labour involves a very long term, and it may be that the prisoner gets 14 days' solitary confinement and that only at the beginning of his term of imprisonment. This solitary confinement is not for the purpose of cruelty, but to enable
the Prison Commissioner to find out something about the man before he comes into touch with the other prisoners, and also to find out what is the most suitable work for the prisoner to do. The result is that very often before the 14 days' solitary confinement is ended the prisoner is drafted off to his own particular work. That is a point which I wish to make quite clear. The provisions of this Bill are not in the direction of hardening or altering the conditions in any of the forms of imprisonment in this country. Then it may be suggested—and I think it would be so—that the effect of this Bill would be to increase the length of the sentence. As I have explained, there would, strictly speaking be no increase, but actually for many years past no longer sentences of imprisonment with hard labour than two years have been passed.

Sir H. SLESSER: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Judges are not of the opinion that imprisonment with hard labour is worse than penal servitude?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I told the House that I thought that my hon. and learned Friend, and possibly my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Bill, and the Lord Chief Justice were influenced in that view, because they had not realised how closely, in the course of the last few years, the two forms of imprisonment and the two forms of labour had approximated in our local prisons and our State prisons. I think the House has got to realise that the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice in the recent case is one which must be taken note of. When you find a series of cases, any one of which would cause a man to be sentenced to two years' hard labour, and when a man is able to serve for one term instead of the appropriate number of terms, although they are in essence entirely different offences, offences against entirely separate people, the man making a practice of offences of that character against different members of the community and repeating them over and over again, it is desirable that the Judges should have the power to inflict such a sentence as they in their discretion deem right and proper for such a series of offences.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has put it to me whether I would advise the House, or the Committee which sits upon this Bill, to limit the terms of penal servitude. My reply is puite definitely "yes." I quite agree that there should be a limit imposed in the Bill, and my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill entirely takes the same view. I think that the length of the period should be left to the Committee. Naturally I, as Home Secretary, have the responsibility of advising the House and the Committee, and I will advise the Committee not to allow the limit to exceed 10 years' penal servitude, and, if the Committee would like five years' penal servitude for offences tried at Quarter Sessions, I will leave it to them. If the Committee think it right to suggest a less term than that, I think the Committee should be allowed to vote freely on the subject. This is not a party question at all. It is a question on which all Members of the Standing Committee will go desiring to do the best thing in the interests of the country as a whole. Therefore, I think the proper course for me to take would be to say that I would use my influence with the Committee not to make the term higher than 10 years, with five years for offences tried at Quarter Session, but, if the Committee desire to make it less than that, then I quite agree that the Committee should have that power.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested a more extended form of inquiry. I hope he will not press that. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Bill made a reference to offences against young children. As the House knows, since I have had the privilege of being at the Home Office—and some of them were in contemplation before the change of Government took place—some very important Committees from a social point of view have been and are still sitting at the Home Office dealing with many of these questions. The House knows the recent offences that have been committed. There is a very important Committee sitting with regard to offences against young people. I want to consider the whole of those reports before I ask the House to deal, on a large scale, with any of these difficult questions, respecting imprisonment and punishment for any
particular form of crime. I think this is outside any such inquiry of that kind, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press for this case to go to a Departmental Committee or anything of that kind.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am not suggesting it so much for this particular Bill, but that the Home Secretary should consider whether, apart from this Bill, the matter should not be considered by a Committee.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That, I think, is a most reasonable suggestion, but I have already three very important committees which have been and are sitting at the Home Office dealing with the whole gamut of the subjects connected with our criminal law, and particularly with regard to offences against women and children, a very horrible form of crime, on which in due course hope to have the privilege of submitting recommendations to the House for their consideration. This Bill deals with a limited question, e, question which the Lord Chief Justice sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal has appealed to the legislature to deal with. It deals with that particular point. I think it can be quite easily distinguished from the main system of criminal jurisdiction, and, on behalf of the Government, I ask the House to give the Bill o, Second Reading in order that it may go to a Committee upstairs, and I am quite sure that any reasonable Amendments can be met in Committee and particularly the Amendment limiting the amount of time.

Mr. HARNEY: I am opposed to this Bill even with the modification which has been suggested by the Home Secretary. It has been put forward by the late Solicitor-General as if it were rather a constitutional and technical question. There is a constitutional question involved, and there are also some technical considerations. I would rather base my opposition on the bread ground that it is entirely a retrograde Measure. There is no use, if the Home Secretary will pardon me saying so, in quibbling and making out that it really adds nothing to the punishment. It does. The very suggestion which came from the Lord Chief Justice was prompted because in a moment of indignation he wished that the punishment could be made greater, and it is brought forward by my hon. and
learned Friend with a view to making the punishment greater. The Home Secretary himself, when he has to crystallise into years what it means, says "Let the punishment that we know now to be limited to two years be extended to 10." There can be no doubt about this enlarging of the powers of judges to punish. I for one am entirely opposed to it.
Nearly every one of the punishments that are annexed to offences in our Statute Book got there at a time when the public view of criminology was more crude and less informed, when we were more affected by vindictiveness than by what we should be—the protection of society and the reform of the offender. That time has passed, and I for one say it has been a blessed passing.
I feel that if every sentence in the Statute Book were halved, it would do a great deal of good. Moderate sentences are as effective for repression as severe ones. You can divide all offenders into two classes—those who act upon impulse and those who act upon design. As regards those who act upon impulse, I cannot see that the nature of the punishment enters into consideration at all; the offence is committed in the passion and fury of the moment. Where a person acts on design, then, no doubt, he makes his calculations, but will any man of the world tell me that an intending offender says, "I would risk this if I were only to get three years; I will not risk it because I might get 10?" Does anyone think an intending offender goes through such a state of ratiocination? Of course he does not. All that is present to his mind is this: "A heavy punishment is annexed to this offence. If I thought I would be found out, I would not risk it, but I will make my plans not to be found out. If they go wrong, I shall have to suffer." Three years instead of five years would have just as good a restraining influence, and the House will surely agree that every month that is given beyond what is necessary for repression is an evil. It is a drain upon our pockets, merely to put it on the most sordid ground, and it is an act of vindictiveness which is unnecessary. Its real evil is that, while it protects society no more, it reduces to a minimum all chance of reform in the unfortunate offender. The longer he is
associated with those who have made society their enemies, the longer is he kept a prey to his own reflections on his ruin and degradation, and the more is destroyed in him that moral resiliency which will enable him when he comes out to turn over a new leaf.
It is said that this is merely giving a margin of discretion to the Judge; but the margin is the mischief. I would narrow the margin. There are Judges and Judges. They are human beings like ourselves. There is one class of Judge who is tolerant and broad-minded, and makes allowances for the frailties and temptations of man. There is another, quite just and quite learned, who is rigid, stern, precise, uncompromising; and it is common knowledge among those who practice in the Law Courts that, for the same offence, what may be three years' penal servitude before one Judge may be 15 years before another. What is the use of talking about learning? The more learned in the law a man is, the less qualified he has often become for dealing with these big considerations of human nature. He has given to the study what other men have given to contact with their fellow beings and to understanding human nature. A man is put on the bench, very often, who has won his spurs nobly by his industry and character and learning, but who has won them in a cloistered life, and he has to deal, not by any rule of law that can be learned, but by the light of his own temperament, by the light of his own idiosyncrasies, by the light of his own experience of life, with the real enormity of an offence that is best known by those who have learned, not from books, but from the study of human nature.
It is said that the Court of Criminal Appeal is there to correct sentences, but the Court of Criminal Appeal is practically useless for that purpose. The Court of Criminal Appeal are themselves Judges, and they are bound to say, "It was within the discretion of the Judge, who saw the witnesses, who saw the demeanour of the accused, who shared the atmosphere of the Court. How can we say that he was wrong?" Unless the sentence be outrageous, where a wide margin is given to the trial Judge I cannot understand the Court of Criminal Appeal correcting him on that point.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon; the Court of Criminal Appeal does do so.

Mr. HARNEY: What I said was that I cannot understand logical Judges sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal correcting a sentence that is given by the trial Judge unless it is wholly disproportionate. That is what I said, and they do not do it unless it is wholly disproportionate.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. and learned Member did not previously mention the qualification about the sentence being wholly disproportionate.

Mr. HARNEY: I think I did say that; if I did not, I certainly meant to do so. We are told that this Bill has been suggested by a recent unsavoury case. I have nothing at all to say about the merits of that case, but I cannot refrain from observing that I do not think the sentence erred on the side of leniency at all. There are two possible views of the occurrences that were visualised by the Judge, but, be that is it may, the Judge himself must have treated it as a very rare case and as a case involving abnormality. Why should we now enlarge the general powers of Judges over all cases in order to meet one which, on the Judge's own view, was highly exceptional and involved abnormality in the man? The hon. and learned Member who moved the Bill said, "Oh, but there are numerous cases of repetition besides these cases." Take the obtaining of goods on credit. A punishment of two years' penal servitude is annexed by law to that offence. When a man enters upon a series of such occurrences, they are put into the indictment marked A, B, C, E, F and so on. According to the contention of the Home Secretary, he could get ten years, and, if no limitation were put in, he might get a life sentence. Let us consider what was intended when this sentence was annexed to the offence.
It was said to the accused, "You were engaged in fraudulent conduct; you were engaged in obtaining goods on credit; this is the punishment "; and to say that a Judge should be let loose, according to the indignation that stirs him at the moment, to give absolutely staggering sentences for this offence is
a thing against which I think we should set ourselves. The House will remember that Judges are, perhaps, fathers, and all of us who are fathers are particularly susceptible to being carried away by indignation against men who in any way molest young girls, though one is blind to modern life who does not see that girls now are largely able to take care of themselves. The Judge at that moment, while he is seething with natural indignation, is to have put into his hands, just when he is not master of his feelings, the power to give savage sentences. In the particular case which led to this Bill, if that were the law, I suppose the sentence might have been penal servitude for life. You may say it is right, or you may say it is wrong. I think it is wrong, but this is what I mean: Is it right to enlarge the margin where the Judge, when he is giving the sentence is really not in a position to gauge his own feelings? For these reasons I, for one, oppose the Bill, and I ask the Howe to reject it.

Captain O'CONNER: Although it has been stated with some force that it would be deplorable if none but members of the legal profession were to take part in this discussion, and although, for my sins, I happen to follow that profession for a livelihood, I claim that my outlook is sufficiently lay, and my distinction in the law sufficiently modest, to enable me to take a purely layman's point of view on the Bill. The first thing I want to say is that if the House listened to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, it would be exceedingly difficult ever to obtain any reform, in the criminal law of the country, except by means of such a general revision as was suggest eel by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench opposite. The petal law of the country is, of course, more or less in the shape of a code. It is unlike the civil law in that respect, because in the civil law you have a living, growing law, varying and changing with every changing phase of the circumstances of the social conscience of the day. So that, to take an example, by their verdicts in cases of tort, or wrong, juries can reflect tide kind of way in which they view the circumstances of the hour. That too often is not possible in the case of crimes, where the discretion of the Court is girt round by penal Statutes that
were passed in days when the social conscience was entirely different from what it is at the present time. So it is only when you get the blazing horror of some case like the Hayley Morriss case that it is necessary to come to this House and ask that in that particular set of circumstances the Courts should be given a little more power.
The justiciary at present has ample power to review its sentences downwards, and I am sure those who know the Judges of this country will agree with me, and not with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, in saying they exercise that discretion downwards in an ever-increasing degree. There is no danger of the Judges exceeding that discretion, but at present the course of justice, which, after all, is equally important as the source of clemency, is dammed in the upward direction, and they cannot adequately deal with certain classes of offences. I support this Bill broadly for that reason. A supreme lawyer, who never practised in any Court, said that his object all sublime was to make the punishment fit the crime. But that, of course, is impossible, because that lawyer was seeking to take an abstract standard, whereas the standard by which men judge crime varies from year to year, and almost from day to day. It is no exaggeration to say the sins of to-day are the virtues of to morrow, and probably many of our ancestors have been hanged for offences for which they would have got the O.B.E. if they had lived in these days. You cannot analyse punishment on any rational basis whatsoever, and there is some force in what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, that a general revision is necessary. But do not let us postpone an instalment for the sake of a general revision which will be extremely comprehensive, when it comes along, but will tale a considerable time.
It is so illogical that it almost defies the intelligence when one seeks to compare some sentences which are possible at present. For instance, a man, for raping a strumpet, may be sent to penal servitude for life. If an attendant at a lunatic asylum successively has carnal knowledge of 10 of his patients and puts them with child, under the present law he is only entitled to be sent to imprisonment for two years. Can anyone suggest that a case like that should not be
dealt with on the modest lines proposed by this Bill, under which he can get a sentence of 10 years or more? Take those followers of the turf who are to be seen in railway carriages approaching big race meetings and who make a lucrative living by inviting the unwary to choose the lady, or thimble rigging. They do so at the risk of seven years' penal servitude. If they turned their attentions to the more nefarious occupation of living on the earnings of a prostitute, they would only do so at the risk of a conviction not exceeding three year's imprisonment. We can go on dealing with those anomalies in succession. A trustee, for instance, who attempts to abscond with a portion of his cestui que trust's property does so at the risk of seven years, but he can debauch the minds of 40 or 50 children in succession by acts of gross indecency, and not suffer more than two years' imprisonment.
The present position of the law is perfectly ridiculous, and this Bill suggests a much needed revision. I should like to mention one case in which I myself appeared and defended a Sunday school teacher who was guilty of no fewer than 14 acts of gross indency towards young boys under the age of five, before the same learned Judge who tried the Hayley Morriss case, and the maximum sentence he was able to award was two years imprisonment with hard labour. Reason revolts against it. The whole thing is anomalous, and this Bill offers a slight corrective. If any of my more attractive colleagues attempts to abduct a ward in Chancery, he will do so at the risk of 14 year's imprisonment, but he may safely transfer his attentions to a convent and abduct a nun, and he will suffer only three years. It is that kind of anomaly that leads to the desire for a general revision of some of the standards on which punishment is to be awarded. But do not let us discard this opportunity of making a revision which all logic demands and all good sense demands, and do not let us, simply because we have the general desire, fail to grasp the opportunity of revising what is a perfect absurdity in the present state of the law.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The House has already listened to six lawyers; I hope they will now pardon a word from an ordinary mortal. I thank the Almighty sometimes that I do not know the law. I thank Him more this morning after hearing
the speeches the six lawyers have made. I am not competent to take up the legal argument in connection with this Bill; but the Title of the Bill rather offended me, and I am not sure that the House has appreciated yet the full meaning of its Title. It is the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill. The speech of the Mover was a very temperate one; but I am not sure what kind of speech would be delivered by a very severe judge as the consequence of the passing of this Measure into law. In fact, the hon. Member himself rather gave me the impression that he was not telling us the whole story about the Measure. I rather incline to the view of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) as to the meaning of the Bill; and although I am not going to say that I will vote against it—in view of what the Home Secretary has told us—I want to put one or two considerations to the House from the layman's point of view.
I object very strongly to increasing penalties of any kind with a view to punish or to attempt to reduce crime. I can give a typical example of what I mean. I am informed on good authority, that about 20 years ago it was customary to sentence a postman who had tampered with a letter to penal servitude for not less than seven years. Now, however, for exactly the same offence the sentence is sometimes only a month's imprisonment. So far as the Post Office is concerned, just as the severity of the sentence has declined the number of offences by postmen has also declined. [HON. MEMBERS "The number of postmen has increased too."] Yes, that emphasises my argument.
As our civilisation has progressed, and taken a more humanitarian point of view with regard to criminals, crime itself has diminished, whilst in those countries where they have increased the severity of sentences crime has generally increased as a consequence. It does not follow, that if you increase the severity of the sentence you decrease the number of crimes. The statistics of the Home Office bear witness to this point. The number of receptions into prisons in this country per 100,000 of the population in 1904 was 512. There has been a complete change in the attitude of mind of the people of this country towards crime since then, and in 1924 the number of receptions
into prison per 100,000 of the population had decreased to 120.
How has that come about? Probation? Yes. Why has probation come about? Simply because the people of this land are getting away from the foolish notion that all you should do with the criminal is to punish him. The idea prevailing now is not punishment but—and I hope the idea will grow—that we ought to save the criminal, that he should be reclaimed and redeemed. I decline to accept the dictum of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) that there are some men in this world who have gone beyond redemption altogether and that all you have to do with them is to keep them in preventive detention for life. That is what this Bill means. A very interesting piece of information came to my notice some time ago. In the United States of America preventive detention is in operation; the law practically allows the judicial and other authorities to keep a man in preventive detention all his life But that does not diminish crime.
I am not prepared to vote against this Measure. I am very much afraid, however, that there is a movement afoot in this country, which has arisen because of the Hayley Morriss case, to make sentences very much more savage than they have been hitherto. I am a little disturbed, too, at statements that have been made recently by Judges of Assize. A statement was made the other day in the City of Manchester, where I live. The Judge there said that he wanted more power to introduce flogging. I have yet to learn that corporal punishment has acted as a deterrent at any time in the history of this country. I feel satisfied that the reverse is the case, as I have tried to indicate.
I have another ohj'ction to this Measure. As far as I understand it, this is a fundamentiel change in the law. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Second heading and the hon. and learned Member who seconded it, tried to make the House believe that there was very little in the Bill. The Home Secretary knows very well, and he has pointed out, that there are several Departmental Committees sitting at the present time inquiring into the treatment of offenders. There is a Report before us of a Departmental Committee on
sexual offences against young persons. There is also a Departmental Committee, of which I am a member, inquiring into the treatment of young offenders. I should have thought that the Home Secretary would have appointed a committee to inquire into this problem and bring all the reports of the various Departmental Committees dealing with these matters under review so that the law may be altered where desirable at one stroke. The Home Secretary will know best what should be done in that connection.
I have endeavoured to make myself familiar with the treatment of offenders. The hon. and learned Gentlemen who have addressed the House in support of this Measure are concerned with the offender only up to the point when he is sentenced. I have met many men and women who are engaged in social work and governors of prisons, and I am as sure as I am standing at this box that the vast majority of governors of prisons in this country would not agree with the statements which have been made in favour of increasing penalties. I have heard them giving evidence, and almost without exception they are aiming, not to increase punishment, but to try to reclaim the offender, believing that they can some day make the worst offender into a decent citizen. If I ever came to such an attitude of despair as to think that men and women have gone beyond redemption I would not be a Member of Parliament. I do not give up hope for hon. Members opposite; even the worst Tory has some good left in him.
The Home Secretary knows that during the last few years there has been a complete change in attitude towards the treatment of offenders in prisons when they get there. The educational work done in prison to-day is simply wonderful and astonishing. There are in some prisons now medical men engaged to study the psychology of the prisoner. I would ask the hon. and learned Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill to remember that it is alleged that a considerable percentage of offenders who are in our prisons at the present time ought never to be there at all, because of mental deficiency; but up to the present the medical profession have not found out definitely the distinction or the line of demarcation
between lunacy and mental deficiency.
The House will be embarking upon a principle which would offend public policy and violate the tendency of modern times in the treatment of offenders, in accepting the Measure as it stands; and I was glad to hear from the Home Secretary that, although he gave the Bill his blessing, that he is not satisfied with it as it stands. I trust, therefore, that when the Bill goes to Committee upstairs, we shall bear in mind the statement made by one of the most eminent men that ever lived in this country in connection with the treatment of criminals. Bentham—I hope I am quoting him correctly—made a declaration of this kind:
You do not punish crime by the severity of the sentence; the criminal is deterred by the certainty that he is going to be caught.
It is not the length of the sentence that matters; it is the certainty that the law pursues the criminal and brings him to justice. I trust, therefore, that, although this Bill may pass this House to-day, when it goes to Committee upstairs we shall bear in mind that some men and women who have passed through our prisons in the past ought to have been in lunatic asylums and not in prisons, and that some should have been in institutions for mental defectives. I hope the House will look upon this problem in the proper way, and will realise that those who have committed offences against the State are not hopeless, and that we must not despair in our efforts at their reclamation.

Commander WILLIAMS: I welcome the opportunity, like the hon. Member opposite, of speaking as a layman on this subject. We have had half-a-dozen speeches, all of them excellent and perfect, and all of them showing an extreme knowledge of the details of the subject from half-a-dozen lawyers, and I think, when we are legislating in this House, we should remember the old-fashioned British principle, that the law of this country is good, in so far as it has been the work of ordinary people, and it is bad wherever lawyers have touched it. That is a sound basis on which to proceed. And when we look at this Bill we find that 10 out of the 12 Gentlemen who are supporting it are
lawyers of one sort or another. I do not for a moment pretend to classify the various sections into which this great, trade union is split. After all, we have the best lawyers in the world, but when everything has been said and done it is most certainly the least useful way of earning money. When I look at the back of the Bill I find, as I have said, that 10 out of these 12 hon. Members are lawyers, and the other two are conspicuous by their absence this afternoon. Apparently they have learned wisdom; and that is that where lawyers are gathered together it is wise for ordinary individuals to keep away. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. W. Graham) and the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. S. Hudson) have been fortunate enough to find more important work for to-day than to be present in this House.
I should like to support the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that there ought to be an inquiry into the whole question. It seems to me, as an ordinary individual, that this method of dealing with the laws of this country, by coming down on a Friday afternoon and proposing to remove some legal excrescence, such as this Bill proposes to do, is not necessarily the right way of doing it. I shall support the Bill because I think on the whole a fairly good case has been made out for it, but I do say quite clearly and definitely that in making laws we ought not to make them because some case or other has occurred in which art individual lawyer has been fortunate enough to be concerned. In this kind of legislation we ought always to keep in mind the general progress and construction of the great edifice of law in this country. It has come down to us through many generations, and from the greatest law givers of all time—the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.
1 P.M.
My point really is that in the particular case with which we are dealing to-day, the Government should consider very carefully where we are going. The tendency is to go gradually in the direction of making our prison institutions rather a means far educating a prisoner out of his former mentality. I do not like that word—I would rather say educate him so that he
will see, better ways of employing his wits and his abilities than in the past. I want to see that process developed; that is the right road on which to progress. I do not think this Bill is going on that road because it proposes to give power to impose additional penalties. It may be wiser in cases where you have a cumulating number of sins against a man to extend the Judge's discretion, but on the whole I do not like the idea of piling up penalties on people except in very very exceptional cases. There is another point. We are here to make the law. When this Bill becomes an Act it will have to be carried out, and we are going to give by this Bill much wider powers to the Executive in the administration of the law. Therefore, when this Bill goes to a Committee upstairs it is essential we should have some Sirt of limit and give some sort of guidance to the Executive as to how far they can go in the matter of punishment. That is all I have to say on this Bill at the moment, but I should like again to emphasise the point that this question should be considered from the wider point of view and that we should try to legislate in the interests of the ordinary man. If we desire to stop crime in this country, the best way is to educate the people out of it.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I had no intention when I came to the House this afternoon of taking part in the Debate on this Bill, because I felt it was rather too technical a matter for the innocent layman. But, after all, it is the man in the street who goes to gaol, and, as a representative of that important sect on of the community, it is right, I think, there should be an expression of opinion from those who are laymen in the House. I do not know how they manage it, but it is a rare event for a member of the Bar to go to gaol. I do not know whether that arises from virtue or from knowledge, possibly from a combination of both. This Bill will increase the discretion of Judges. We read of offences being committed, a verdict of guilty being brought in, and then, apparently, a totally inadequate sentence imposed.
I am certain that none of us views the criminal law as a vindictive thing. We regard it as a deterrent and sometimes as a means of preventing those who have already done things they should not have done from having an opportunity of repeating
the same offence. When you read of these offences where the sentence is inadequate from the general point of view, I think it is right to increase the discretion of the Judges. I am not personally acquainted with any of the Judges. I can judge them only as the ordinary newspaper reader judges them. It seems to me that our Judges to-day are men of wide discretion and sound common sense and humanity, and I am quite satisfied that their successors, so far as they are represented by those who have taken part in the Debate this morning, possess the same admirable qualities, and are entitled to use a greater measure of discretion than they possess at the present time.
The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), who is always interesting to listen to, whether we agree with him or not, suggested that length of sentence had nothing to do with it. But it may be justifiable to impose a long sentence, and the great changes that have taken place in criminology have not been so much in the reduction of sentences as in the more appropriate treatment of those who have been sentenced. Of course, in that direction there are great possibilities. The hon. and learned Member differentiated between those who act on impulse and those who act on design. So far as I understood his argument, it was that those who act on impulse should be treated very lightly. I am inclined to doubt his attitude in that respect, because the person who acts on impulse is the person who lacks adequate self-control and is a danger to the community at all times.

Mr. MacLAREN: He is an Irishman.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That danger becomes manifest when the impulsive crime is committed. I think it is very probable that if some of our psycho-analysts had their own way they would desire to keep hold for all time, or at least for the rest of their lives, of those who act on these impulses. With regard to the man who acts on design, I think it is the case that by punishment you can make him design in future not to act on the same design. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who always puts his case so attractively, suggested that punishment
is no deterrent. That is a very fine phrase. But it is not true. We all know of cases where, very clearly, punishment has been a deterrent. Even in our political activities we have such experiences. I remember that, during the recent General Election, one night I could not get a reasonable hearing at any of my meetings. The next night the same thing happened. At my second meeting I thought it was desirable to apply deterrents; so, under my personal direction, eight people were thrown out of the meeting. We had quiet meetings for the rest of the campaign. Those of my constituents who do not support me know perfectly well that if the same thing happens in future we shall throw them out again. As a consequence we now have quiet meetings. These were typical men in the street, of the Socialist persuasion. What then is the use of suggesting that punishment is no deterrent?

Mr. THURTLE: Would it not have been greater punishment had the men remained at the meeting?

Mr. WILLIAMS: All I can say is that they have not tried that. There were always numbers of people outside who could not get in, and up to now I have not failed in attractiveness, however I may have failed in other directions. With regard to length of sentences, at times a heavy sentence impresses the public imagination and is a very real deterrent to a lot of those who may have been engaged in the kind of offence under consideration. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields told us that the better the lawyer the worse the Judge. That is a rather serious condemnation of his own profession. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with his professional attainments to know whether he is a great man or a great lawyer, but when we know which he is, we shall be able to discover whether his ultimate ambition is to wear the red robe instead of the lounge suit which is the characteristic of the House of Commons.
Let me speak now in all seriousness. We have in this country a certain number of lay judges, or they are frequently lay judges, namely, the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. I would like to know whether my hon. and learned Friend thinks that these lay judges are more merciful than
those who have been trained in the law? The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that it was not right to treat offences cumulatively. Surely he does not suggest that the individual who on one occasion only commits a certain type of offence is in the same position as a man who may have committed that offence fifty times and is charged only on the fiftieth time, though in connection with that charge it is discovered that he has committed it many times in the past? Surely he does not suggest the same punishment in both cases? It seems to me that a definite case has been made out for the Bill. No doubt when it goes upstairs it will be altered in form and some of the difficulties which have been raised here will be met. But on broad lines there is a case for the Second Reading and I shall vote for the Bill, should there be a Division.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I had no intention of taking part in the Debate, and I rise now largely in consequence of the speech made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I am always surprised and somewhat amused to find the indignation which exists in the House because lawyers take part in a debate on a law Bill. I should have thought that if you had a Bill dealing entirely with legal questions the House would expect the lawyers present to contribute to the Debate. It would seem disrespectful if they did not do so. If the lawyers in the House were to confine their attention to the details of beet-sugar growing or the fascinations of the Scottish Estimates, I think the House would be disappointed. I am rather reminded of a personal experience in my constituency. I delivered a remarkably able speech, upon agricultural subjects entirely, at an agricultural show, and next day I had a letter of congratulation from one of those who heard me, and he said, "I think your speech was particularly fine, because I too am often called upon to speak on subjects which do not understand." That is the sort of experience to which the House may be subjected.
I have risen because I think it ought to be pointed out that the modern tendency, indeed all modern effort, is directed to reclamation of the criminal rather than punishment. Great strides have been made more particularly in the treatment
of the young. I think everyone will agree that the most important item in criminal legislation and practice is, if possible, to get bold of the young and to deter them, not to punish them and force them to mix with criminals at an early age—if possible to reclaim them and make them honest, hardworking men. The Borstal system is in successful operation, and there are attached to the Criminal Courts probation officers of experience who do wonderful work in reclaiming juvenile offenders. Great strides have been made in that direction. I disagree with one remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman, in which he deprecated the use of jogging. I seem to remember that this punishment was first put into actual operation at a time when there was an epidemic of garrotting, when defenceless old men and weak women and poor little children were brutally attacked. The result of the application of flogging was practically to wipe out that offence altogether. It is all very well for hon. 'Members to seek to touch the emotions of the House by describing the horrors of flogging, but when I think of tha horrors perpetrated on women and children who have been mutilitated and dishonoured times out of number by brutes in human form, I can only come to the conclusion that flogging is not one whit more than such brutes deserve.
That example alone shows that a sentence of that kind is a deterrent. The are many of these men for whom a sentence of imprisonment has no horrors. In winter - time men often come back to prison in order to get a warm home in which to spend the cold months. There is only one way to deal with a man of a nature so brutal that he could contemplate unmentionable cruelties on women and children, and that is by givrig him a punishment which will deter Lim and frighten him, coward as he is, by personal violence. It is the only possible means of stopping outbreaks of the kind I have just mentioned. I want the House to realise, however, that this is not a bloodthirsty attempt to increase sentences, or to show in undue measure the severity of the law. On the contrary, the whole tendency is to reclaim where possible. We must not only reclaim but deter, and the only way to deter is to pass sentences of which people will think before they
commit a crime, instead of afterwards, and which will stay the hand of the potential criminal.

Mr. SEXTON: Like the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) I take this opportunity of speaking as the representative of the man who is not only in the street, but of the street. I desire to raises a question which might be raised on the Home Office Vote were it not for the fact that the Home Office Vote is a very elusive quantity and is generally included in the "slaughter of the innocents," at the end of the Session, and I have no other way of getting at the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary except through the present Bill. The point I wish to raise is the question of imprisonment in respect of industrial school fees. I am aware that it may be said that this is a short sentence subject, and is more a case for summary jurisdiction—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): In dealing with this matter the hon. Member is straying rather far from the Bill.

Mr. SEXTON: I am sorry; this is the only opportunity I shall have to raise the question.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the hon. Member care to write to me, or to see rue about the matter? I am always available and accessible to hon. Members, but I scarcely think the point he indicates would be in order on the present occasion.

Mr. SEXTON: I shall take the earliest opportunity of communicating with the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain FAIRFAX: In the course of this Debate, three speakers have made vehement attacks on this Bill, and of the three, one has attacked the lawyers, another has criticised the Judges, and the third has expressed his detestation of punishment. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) attacked lawyers on the ground that they formed a close trade union in order to secure the highest possible fees, and he apparently considered that they rendered very indifferent service in return. I should have thought that the protection of the public from injury and fraud was a considerable service. I do not say that lawyers always deserve the high fees commanded by the most
eminent members of the profession, but I consider that they render a service of considerable value to the public. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) seemed to apprehend, if the Judges got the larger discretion proposed in this Bill, they would exercise it in a vindictive and oppressive manner. I do not know that recent decisions supply the hon. and learned Member with material for that accusation, and although he made a speech of considerable length, he never cited chapter and verse, or gave any instance of the vindictive sentences which he apprehended.
We have been told that the Lord Chief Justice has asked for these added powers and has stated in the most unequivocal manner that they are required, therefore it seems to me that the House ought to grant those powers. Certainly, the subject should receive full consideration, and when the Bill goes to Committee, care should be taken that those restrictions are applied which the Mover of the Bill suggested. In its present form the Bill seems to make possible very extensive sentences—it is conceivable that sentences of from 20 to 30 years might be imposed—but nobody imagines that anything of the kind will take place. I have discussed this matter with some of my hon. and learned Friends and I have asked, in point of fact, what sentence would probably have been imposed in the Hayley Morriss case, had this Measure been in operation. I am told that in a case of that kind, under the present Measure, a criminal would be liable, possibly, to 12 years, but that it was very unlikely that a sentence of more than five or six years would be actually inflicted.
The Home Secretary has told us about the conditions prevailing in the prisons. I was not aware that the conditions were now similar both in penal servitude and in imprisonment. It seems to me that the evening-up of both forms of confinement, and the fact that we are making them uniformly lighter and more endurable than they were in former times, is a great argument in favour of the Bill. There is a great deal to be said for the argument of the ex-Solicitor-General that the whole question of sentences ought to be reconsidered, but that consideration should not deter the House from giving the Bill a
Second Reading. Objection has also been taken to the fact that so many lawyers support the Bill, but when we are dealing with an improvement in the law, I think lawyers should have the first say. We have also had the opinions of many lay-members of the House, and I think the concensus of opinion is entirely in favour of the Bill.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but after the remarks that fell from the hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Sir E. Hume-Williams) I think it might be of interest if I give some small experience that I have had in the administration of the law in the Colonies. This question of punishment was always before us in the young Colony where we were building up our penal system, and very varying expressions of opinion were heard from different people on this subject, but the one particular fact which I would like to lay before the House from my own experience is this when I first had charge of the Department, I called for a return from all the magistrates of corporal punishments, and the returns that I received were of such a horrifying character that I destroyed them, so that they should not get publicity. I thereupon set myself to do what I could to reduce the system which had grown up of giving corporal punishment indiscriminately, because, under the law as it then existed in the Protectorate, magistrates were at liberty to give corporal punishment practically in lieu of almost any other form of punishment, and they had got into the habit of ordering corporal punishment. I may say that in the course of a very few years the amount of corporal punishment that was inflicted was reduced to a very small percentage, and that, without any corresponding increase in crime.
That is the only point that I want the House to bear in mind, that though it may be argued that corporal punishment may in certain special circumstances, such as that of garrotting, referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Basset-law, have a particular effect, it cannot, I think, be argued as a general proposition that corporal punishment or undue and over-severe punishment has the effect of deterring crime. If you have a punishment of three years, supposing it is
increased to five years, do you expect that the crime punishable by the three years is going to become any less because the term is increased to five years? The experience of those who have to do with the administration of the law, either at home or abroad, will, I am sure, be entirely in the negative. Personally, in this century in which we live, I look upon any attempt to increase punishment as a retrograde step, and I also think it is very unwise to have ad hoc legislation of this sort introduced because of a particular case. For these reasons, I intend to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. BECKETT: I too hope, like the last speaker, that this Bill will not be carried by the House. It seems to me to be clearly a stunt Bill because of one case, which has attracted much more public attention than was either necessary or good for that case, and it seems to me that this Bill is not going to deal with social evils of that sort at all. We have heard a lot this morning about deterring crime, but the best deterrent to the kind of crime involved in the case of which we are talking is to find plenty of useful work and rot too large an income for so many of the younger men in this country. While sort of thing is going on, and you have people living in this privileged position, and the present uneconomic position of a large number of young women in this country, you are bound to get this kind of case arising. I speak as a layman, and I do not agree with some of the previous speakers that it is best for lawyers to take a large part in the making of law in this House, because I think the law of this country would have been much more comprehensible if the lawyers had not had so much to do with the making of it. It always seems to me, and did seem to me before I came here, when I used to have occasion to go through Parliamentary Acts and Bills, that one of the chief objects of the legal fraternity in this House is to make the law so completely un-understandable that nobody but members of their own trade union could understand it, and, in the second place to leave here and there room for so much misunderstanding and quibbling that there would be a kind of very comfortable royalty for the rest of their lives in translating to the public the laws which they had made in this Chamber.
This Bill, so far as I can understand it, is not going to have the slightest effect in the stopping of the kind of case with which it is framed mainly to deal and which, fortunately, is a rare kind of case. I think the House, when it is voting on this Bill, should face the whole of the implications of our present prison system. Why do we send men to prison? Is it on the old Hebraic principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, with the idea that you have broken this law or that law, and the penalty must be so many as uncomfortable years as we can possibly provide for you? Or have we taken a more modern view of crime and punishment, and do we say that our object in bringing these offenders to the bar of justice and sending them to prison is not out of a spirit of revenge, but is in order to try and change, as the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) put it so well, their mentality towards the class of offence they have committed? I submit that the whole principle of consecutive punishment is entirely wrong, and that, rather than introduce a Bill to make the method of that punishment more severe, it would be more useful if this House were considering the whole principle upon which it is founded.
If you do not send a man to prison purely out of revenge, if you just send a man to prison because you want to bring restraining and improving influences to bear upon him, suppose he gets two years for one offence and 12 months for another, at the end of his two years that man, if your prison system is good, may have completely vindicated the reasons for which you decided to exercise a restraining influence upon him. You are then going, irrespective of what kind of character the man has—and two years of good influence may make a great deal of difference even to a hardened criminal—to say to him: "Two years ago, before we reformed you, you committed another petty offence, and we are going to keep you here another 12 months, and society will take its whole toll from you because of that." I submit that that is the very last thing that is going to make such a man better. It is, on the contrary, going to make him worse, it is going to make him bitter, and if you have done him good in the first two years, you are going, by merely carrying on a bitter vendetta of
the most uncomfortable form of imprisonment against him, to undo any of the good which the prison system you are trying to improve may have done him.
I listened to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and the extremely humorous illustrations that he gave. I have seen some of the cartoons in the Press of Mussolini, and I do not suggest that the hon. Member represents him in any other way, but his illustration of throwing people out of a public meeting who did not agree with him, does not seem to me to be a very good one. I do not make a habit of going to ask questions of Conservative candidates at elections. I have found it is a waste of time, because they never answer me, but if I did make it a habit, and some miniature Mussolini came along with two or three bruisers—I do not suppose he would do it himself—and threw me out, it would not deter me from going again the next evening. It would merely make me decide to take half a dozen friends with me when I did go. If you have a man who cannot be trusted to be at liberty, because of wrong instincts, a man who commits the kind of things which the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir B. Hume-Williams) mentioned with regard to sexual offences, I do not think it is any good taking him into a prison, flogging him, making him a bigger brute than before, and then sending him out merely feeling that he is not the only brute in the country, but that there are others, who masquerade under the name of law and order. The only thing to do in a case of that kind is to exercise a restraining influence; flogging a man and taking it out of him for some inherited psychological trait is merely degrading society, degrading the people who administer the punishment, and still further degrading the people whom you flog and treat in that brutal way.
I have no close legal knowledge of this subject, but I want very seriously to suggest, not from the legal but from the common-sense point of view, that to punish a man at the end of one period of imprisonment for a crime which he committed before he went to prison is not a good thing. It is a very retrograde step in the administration of our prisons, and I sincerely hope Members will not allow themselves to be carried away by one objectionable case, which was exploited
in the Press in a way it ought never to have been exploited, and that, in order to share some of the glory and limelight of the Yellow Press, the House of Commons will not lose the little dignity that still remains to it, in order that it may follow in the chariot of a silly and absurd tumult that a certain type of newspaper has endeavoured to create, and I am sorry that members of legal professions should lend themselves to such an undignified proceeding.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I will not stand between the House and a Division, if there is to be a Division, for more than a few moments. I have changed my opinion since coming into the House as the result of the speeches. The speeches on a Friday affect our decision and vote in a way which can scarcely be said of any other day in the week. I had intended to support this Bill, but, if it goes to a Division, I am going to oppose it. I have arrived at that decision, not merely from the speeches of those who have opposed the Bill, but from speeches delivered in its defence to-day. There was one speech delivered by an hon. Member on the other side who gave the sentences for various crimes, and they were so unreasonable that I felt that no one-Clause Bill like this was sufficient to deal with it, and that it would be better if a Committee were set up to go into the whole question and bring up a report. When we received that report, we should be able to decide in a way we cannot decide to-day on this Bill. We have heard very much about one case, and I confess that if the Judge had had the power, and had given that man 10 years, he would have been justified, and I think if he had gone further with the woman, he would have been justified.
Although that is one case, I do not think it is sufficient to justify us in altering the whole system of sentences. I do not think it is wise to legislate when we are in a vein of revenge, as we are at the present moment. I do not think we ought to be legislating on the advice of one Judge, who has based an opinion on that, and suggested the powers he would like to have. Judges are like everybody else. They have temperaments. I sometimes sit on a bench of magistrates, and I find men there who, I believe, think they are put there for the mere purpose of punishing
people, fining and imprisoning them. I have always thought that I was placed there to put people on the right way again if I could. Judges are exactly the same as magistrates. Some have a more savage disposition than others, and if they were given the large powers suggested, some of them would go to extremes, and we should all be crying out about that, and the Home Secretary would be receiving more deputations than he is receiving to-day on points of that kind. I think the whole thing ought to be let alone until an inquiry is held, and the sentences for different crimes are brought more into line with those crimes than is the case to-day. For that reason, if it goes to a division, I shall oppose the Bill, but if some other method is suggested for this purpose, I shall certainly support it.

Mr. NAYLOR: As there appears to be some difference of opinion on these benches with regard to the Bill, I should like to give my reasons why I intend to support it. I understand the Home Secretary has given certain assurances with regard to what might take place in Committee, and, provided we can get that security against certain abuses which might arise out of the Bill as it now stands, I am quite satised to reserve my final decision until this Bill returns from the Committee. I agree with the fundamental principle laid down by certain Members on these benches that it would be better if we could alter the whole system so as to make crime impossible, by improving the conditions. But my mind goes back to the very simple proposition of punishment in school, and when I hear that heavy sentences have no effect in deterring crime, it seems to me that that is against the experience of teachers in the schools. It is pretty well known, I think, that when children are checked by some form of punishment, it acts as a great deterrent upon the rest of the children in the school, and what is true in the schools is true in regard to children of larger growth.
It seems to me an outrage that in the Hayley Morris case a sentence of two or three years only was possible under the law as it stands. I say with every confidence in the justice of the claim, that crimes of this kind would decrease if the punishment were made more severe, and I think that applies to every case of misdemeanour and crime. If
you can deter men by letting them know the consequences of any misdeeds they may commit, it must have an effect upon the conduct of individuals, and, because I believe that, I am prepared to vote for the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: I came here to-day in a different frame of mind from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards). He came with his mind made up to vote for the Bill. I came with my mind bent to vote against the Bill. I listened very intently to the Mover and Seconder of the Bill, and their speeches rather confirmed my mind against the Bill, and made me feel one would be more justified in voting against the Bill, because the Mover said very deliberately that there was a time when two years' hard labour was a very severe sentence, but, owing to the humanising of the discipline in prison, it was altogether a different thing to-day. If there has been more humanising of the discipline in prisons, in my opinion the prisoners ought to have the benefit of that. The sentences ought not to be increased in order to make up for the humanising of the discipline.
What frightens me in these matters is this; that there seems to be a drift towards more severe and savage sentences both in the higher and lower Courts. We on this side of the House think we see in recent cases a severity of sentences largely due to the influence brought to bear upon the Judge by Press campaigns. We have got some experience in the police Courts. At the moment I have in mind the case, at Bishop Auckland, in the County of Durham, of two girls, 14 years of age, brought up for a first offence and charged with stealing 4½d. worth of coal. Mark you, in the North of England, in December, we had some very severe weather. In this part of the country we might have had cold weather, but in the North of England it was extremely severe. These girls for that theft were fined 6s. each, and the costs of the Court. They were not treated as first offenders. The sum of 6s. might not appear large to some hon. Members here, but where the father is out of work, and the people need warmth, that fine upon each girl was a real savage and severe sentence. They certainly should have been dealt with as first offenders.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Cases in the Police Court are not affected by anything at all in this Bill.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, Sir, I know; but I was rather emphasising the drift towards more savage and severe sentences. I was illustrating that drift. I could cite another case by way of illustration of this drift. Just before Christmas, in the Durham Police Court, a man—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not dealing here with police court cases at all, but with indictable offences, and where penal servitude may be substituted by the Court of Assize for hard labour.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, Sir, I quite accept that. But the point of view I am trying to put is that some of us believe that this Bill shows that drift towards more severe sentences.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: But these police court cases are dealt with by the magistrates, and are quite different from the class of offences that come under the present Bill.

Mr. BATEY: With that I agree. Only I suggest there is this danger: if you begin to bring more severe sentences into the higher Courts, then the lower Courts might follow that example, which is a bad one. It is this we want to avoid. I was endeavouring to cite these local cases, because I have been refused permission to put questions in the House about them, and I wanted to say to-day what I could say on the matter—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better bring in a Criminal Law Amendment Bill.

Mr. BATEY: That is one of my objections to the Bill. My objection is that last year this House passed two Bills dealing with the Criminal Law. I object to the House being continually asked to deal with these matters in such a piecemeal fashion. I consider that if we want to deal with this matter we ought to deal with it thoroughly while we are busy.

Mr. BARKER: If this Bill goes to a Division I shall vote for it. It raises the question of a very recent offence. Before we can properly understand the Bill we should have to understand the offence out of which it has arisen. The case that was recently before the Courts was an appallingly
bad case. We had a man of considerable wealth and considerable experience of the world who deliberately set himself up to trap and ruin young girls under the pretext of engaging them for-domestic service. He thus got them into his hands. The domestic servants of this country come very largely, if not entirely, from the working homes of our people. They are innocent. They are defenceless. They go to these homes to render domestic service. These girls need to be protected in every possible way, because of their utter helplessness, and their utter inexperience of the world.
Here was a man only 38 years of age who had been leading an abominable life for some time. He kept a woman for the purpose of assisting him to procure these innocent girls. When he had them in his possession, and had gratified his lust, and had ruined them, then his next object was to seek out further game. In three years time that man will be let loose again upon society. The Judge that tried the matter deplored the fact that he could not imprison him for a longer period than three years. The same opinion was expressed in the higher Court. I say this Bill is very necessary for the protection of these young people. We have had to-day a discussion on humanitarianism. What can humanitarianism do for a man like Hayley Morriss. How are we going to coax him into virtue? The thing is absolutely absurd. It is such sloppy sentiment that plays into the hands of this kind of man.
This Bill, I think, is very necessary. In a case like this, though one rebels at the idea of being vindictive to any person, yet I say a man like Hayley Morriss is a danger to society. Men like he, with the means at their disposal, when they come out can prey again upon society, because in this matter there is a very great lack in the law of the country. The law from this standpoint needs amendment. I myself do not believe in savage sentences; but I do believe in keeping men of the character of this one in durance vile so

that he cannot prey upon innocent girls in our country. From that standpoint I support the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading with a big majority.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I only desire to speak for one moment, and that is in reference to some of the statements of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. If this Bill were confined to dealing with pimps and procurers, such as he has described, I should unhesitatingly vote for it. But as I read the Bill, it does not only deal with scamps and ruffians such as my hon. Friend has described, it applies to persons convicted on indictment, and that may cover political offences and all sorts of things.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I would like to tell the hon. Member that as at present drawn the Bill does not cover any political offences of which I know, because they are punishable with something more than imprisonment, or, at the moment, a fine can be inflicted.

Mr. HARNEY: An offence may be created any day.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry I am not able to discuss these technical matters witlh the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), because I am without the necessary knowledge. But what is puzzling me and other hon. Members on this side of the House is how we can get at ruffians of the Hayley Morriss type without bringing in other offenders whose offences may be political, or may not be so vicious and so hurtful and harmful to the morals of society as those of the Hayley Morriss type of criminal. Unless I can be assured that this Bill covers only pimps and rascals such as the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) has described, I am afraid I shall be compelled to vote against it.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 38.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[1.58 p.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Barr, J.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Berry, Sir George
Bromley, J.


Baker, Walter
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.
Cassels, J. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ropner, Major L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Couper, J. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Crooke, J. Smedley, (Deritend)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smithers, Waldron


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maclntyre, Ian
Templeton, W. P.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thurtle, E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Capt. D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, F. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Forrest, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Pitcher, G.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Haslam, Henry C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Preston, William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remer, J. R.
Mr. Greaves-Lord and Mr. Hawke.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Windsor, Walter


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potts, John S.
Sir Robert Hamilton and Mr.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Purcell, A. A.
Harney.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Commander FANSHAWE: I beg to "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
By the luck of the ballot I am able today to present to the House the Allotments (Scotland) Bill to amend Section 16 of the Allotments (Scotland) Act of 1922. This is a non-controversial Measure, and I believe it is the desire of all the Scottish Members of this House, and the great majority of the people of Scotland, that this Bill should become law with as little delay as possible. Last year a similar Bill
was introduced for England and Wales, and the larger Bill has now become an Act of Parliament. This Measure has received the assent and the approval of the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders, who consider that this short Bill satisfies all their requirements. The resolution which they passed at their meeting which was held at Dunfermline on Saturday, 13th February last, was as follows:
That this meeting cordially and unanimously approves of the Allotments (Scotland) Bill introduced into the House of Commons by Commander Fanshawe, M.P., and expresses the hope that it will receive the support of all parties, and speedily pass into law.
This Bill simply seeks to amend Section 16 of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, which is the Section that enables local authorities to purchase allotments if there
would not be a deficit. This amending Bill enables the local authorities, should they think fit, to, levy a penny rate in the £ to cover that deficit. That puts the whole matter very briefly. I do not think any local authority can possibly take exception to this proposal, because it is not obliged to levy this penny rate, but this proposal enables them to do so should they so desire. It is quite obvious that if this Bill becomes law the whole allotment system of Scotland will be enlarged, and it would be enlarged for the general well-being of the people, particularly those who live in those undesirable houses in the large cities, in mining areas, and in the smaller towns. Undesirable houses which have no garden spaces making it impossible for those who live in them to grow anything for themselves, and they have to buy every thing they put on their tables in the way of food. The housewives have to provide the food for the home and balance their budgets, and very often their husbands are working short time. I know that in my own constituency many miners are unemployed, and when they have to balance their household budget they would most certainly prefer to have little plots of ground where they could grow vegetables and potatoes, and this would do much to help them over the bad times which they are now experiencing. When a man goes back to his home from his work he finds it quite a recreation to work in his allotment and raise crops for his own use. When I was serving officer I had an allotment in the South of England, and my greatest recreation was to work on my allotment in the evenings, when I was able to get ashore from my ship.
Then there is the question of the children and the danger of them playing on the roads in the country. The children very often run out where they have no gardens, and they play in the main roads, and frequently get under the wheels of a passing motor-car. Under these circumstances it is amazing that there are not more accidents to the children of the country. If the people had more allotments the children could play in safety for the benefit of their health, and they could at the same time be learning a certain amount of agriculture, while their fathers were planting
potatoes and vegetables, because they could assist in the process. I think this would also be some incentive to the children to settle on the land. I would like to mention the case of a man who has served for many years in the army, as company sergeant-major, and he is just now leaving his profession. He has been employed as sergeant-instructor to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and he wishes to take up the profession of raising poultry, and he has written to the authorities asking for an allotment. This man has given all the best years of his life to the service of his country, and now he wishes to have an allotment. The more food we can produce in every way, whether in the shape of eggs, poultry or vegetables, makes it all better for the national good.
After the War, at the beginning of 1920, I went to Germany and stayed there three years, and I found that that country had bee], through a great measure of starvation. This was felt mostly in the towns, and it was due to the stringency of our blockade. All around the big towns of Germany I found allotment gardens well looked after, and many small houses built, so that the people could go and enjoy the sunshine and the pleasures of their allotment gardens. I do not say for one moment that we were reduced to the same straits. It is true that we were reduced, and it was absolutely essential that we should grow as much food as we possibly could. Our public parks and other places were turned into allotment gardens, but now they have gone back to their original purpose. That has given the people who had those allotments a taste for them and we want more of them at the present moment. The Government Report on Agricultural Policy says:
The proposals for small and cottage holdings and the facilities for the provision of allotments, which have recently been extended, offer opportunities of advancement to workers on the land.
Those proposals were extended to England and Wales, but this Bill seeks to extend those principles to Scotland and Wales as well. I hope that every hon. Member in this House who takes part in the Debate, and who represents an English or a Welsh constituency, will, if this Bill goes to a Division, vote for the Second Reading. All we want is
that in Scotland we should now be allowed to enjoy what has been granted to England and Wales. And there is no reason why we should not have these allotments, and we must have them. If this Measure is not granted a Second Reading I believe that we shall not get it passed into law this year. For these reasons I hope the Government will extend every facility they can for the passage of this Bill, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will see that it passes into law during the year 1926.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill.
It is not an imposing Measure like the English Bill. Like our country, it is modest, and all we ask is that we should be allowed to help ourselves, which is all Scotsmen have ever asked, anywhere. I think that this Bill comes in time to save the allotment movement in Scotland. There have been many difficulties since the War, but there is still a faithful band of at least 20,000 allotment holders in Scotland who may be regarded as a permanent nucleus, unless they meet with difficulties which we hope this Bill will prevent. It is unnecessary, especially after the eloquent words of the hon. and gallant Member, for me to say anything in praise of allotment-holding as an occupation. Gardening is one of the healthiest exercises and benefits both body and mind. Secondly, it assists, as the hon. and gallant Member has pointed out, our national food supply. There are those in high places who at present are going up and down the length and breadth of the land pointing out the iniquity of our importing between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 worth of foodstuffs. This Bill will make its modest contribution towards the solution of that problem.
There have been two main difficulties which have hampered the allotment movement in Scotland. One has been insecurity of tenure, and the other has been that economic rents have been too high for many prospective allotment holders to pay. As regards the first difficulty, it is quite well known that many allotment holders, after having worked hard at their little plot and after having got it into a condition so that they could take some pride in it; having erected,
perhaps, some little structure below which they could sit, blowing their tobacco and surveying the wonderful results of their handiwork, have been ruthlessly evicted and have had to start making a beauty spot all over again somewhere else. There have been cases in which people have been evicted no fewer than three times in one year. Human nature does not stand a great deal of that sort of thing. That has been one reason why the allotment movement has suffered. The second class of difficulty has been found especially in Edinburgh, Gasgow and Dundee, where near the crowded centres, allotments are most needed, and where the available land is expensive.
The corporations have put forward schemes and have tried to get grants, but, as they were not successful, and the economic rent being too great for those who wished to take advantage of those schemes, they have had to be abandoned. We have an example of this in Edinburgh in the district of St. Leonards, the most densely populated district in the city. The corporation proposed buying land on the adjacent estate of Preston-field and giving facilities to a flourishing local allotment association which holds successful shows every year. It was discovered, however, that the economic rent would be such that the members of this society could not possibly pay it, and the scheme did not mature. The same thing took place in Glasgow and also in Dundee. The amount that would have been required from the corporation was a few paltry shillings a year per allotment, but it would have made all the difference. The corporation, however, could not give it according to the law. All that we are now asking is that allotments should be placed on the same footing as public parks, bowling greens, tennis courts, and so on, where it is not essential, although it may be desirable in some cases, to make them actual paying propositions.
It is also provided in the Bill that any expenditure which the corporation may incur must not be more than the yield of a penny rate. A deputation was sent hurriedly yesterday from the Sub-Committee of the Lord Provost's Committee of Edinburgh Corporation to oppose this Measure, under the impression that it was a compulsory Bill. I have seen that deputation, and I think
I have managed to allay their anxiety and have pointed out to them that no corporation is compelled to accept the Bill or to act upon it unless their constituents desire it. There can be no great objection to the Bill at all. The only objection that I know of is that there is a natural hankering after that £4,000 which was supposed to have been provided under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919. I have a very great sympathy with the feeling of those who consider that we have a grievance in regard to that matter, but that £4,000 developed a "Mrs. Harris" quality and gradually faded away like a beautiful dream. I do not think that there is any prospect of that beautiful dream ever becoming a reality under this hardhearted Government, therefore I have very great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as the best that we can do in the circumstances.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I need hardly say that I do not for a moment rise to say anything contrary to the excellent sentiments which have been expressed by my two hon. Friends on each side of the House. I only desire to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to be good enough to make quite clear, for the sake of that deputation to which nay hon. Friend has referred, the exact meaning of this Bill. I, too, have had a conversation with the deputation, and, while they expressed the utmost solicitude and desire to do everything possible to promote the allotment movement, they are perturbed because they think it is possible that some construction may be placed upon this Bill which may make it compulsory. They think that the word "may" may mean "shall," and they think that in law it is interpreted as "shall." I desire my right hon. Friend to be good enough to allay their feelings and to tell us exactly what is the meaning of this particular word. The corporation, in a letter which I hold in my hand, point out that it may mean a levy up to £19,000 upon the City of Edinburgh, and in these days when we are all most anxious to save even £200,000, when we think that it can be saved, the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh, too, think that they should look after the interests of that body who cheerfully and most
willingly pay, but pay what they consider to be rates quite sufficient even perhaps for the most prosperous city in Scotland.
All of the Edinburgh Members wish to encourage the allotment movement, but we wish to exercise that carefulness for which our countrymen are distinguished. Perhaps I may presume to mention that I myself am the president of an allotment association in the South of Scotland, and I have, if, again, I may presume to say so, from my boyhood taken a great interest in the question of allotments. It was a near relative of mine who, in 1845, suggested to a very eminent Member of this House that he should bring in an Allotments Bill, and I have that particular Bill in my possession at this moment. From that day to this our party has been, rightly, the party that has encouraged the allotment movement, because it makes for contentment, and contentment makes for Conservatism.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid I do not see the connection between the development of Conservatism and this proposed amendment of the Act of 1922.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I presume you do not want me to pursue that particular question of the growth of Conservatism, even on a Friday afternoon, so I will content myself with saying that I hope, after the explanation which no doubt we shall receive from the Secretary of State for Scotland, that this Bill will be passed.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I would like to add a word in favour of this Bill to what has been already so ably advanced. I would point out that in Scotland, where our local authorities have been accustomed to act on very secure and safe ground, under the present Act there has always been a tendency to doubt whether the necessary finances would be forthcoming to invest in new allotments, and, therefore, this new Bill, which allows a penny rate for meeting any deficit, will, I am sure, do a great deal towards advancing the cause of allotments. It seems to me that allotments are the best form of smallholdings for our people. The working population in our towns and cities are able, as long as they have suitable transport and it is sufficiently close to their homes, to cultivate plots of land to their great advantage, and in many ways this movement is
better suited to our population than, in some cases, are smallholdings. I, for one, feel that the advancement of allotment-holding would be of great advantage to our population, especially when they have to go through hard times.
I have seen the advantages of the allotment movement round the cities in Germany, where the city workers are conveyed by trams and so forth out to their allotments at a minimum of expense and physical effort, so that in an hour or two each day, especially in the summer, they can cultivate their allotments. Again and again these people have told me, when I have had the privilege of talking with them on their allotments, that they owed their sustenance during the very hard times they have gone through in Germany to these very allotments. Therefore, it seems to me that we ought to do everything we can to help our various authorities in the towns and cities of Scotland to give this movement a very necessary fillip. I should like to point out that in some ways this Bill is better than the English Bill. We have an Act about which people know, and which they are accustomed to use. They are accustomed to its various terms, and this amending Clause which deals with Section 16 really improves the present Act, and allows people to work under the old conditions. I have very much pleasure in suggesting that this Bill should go through without any opposition from any Member in any quarter of the House.

Mr. COUPER: I rise to support the Bill, and to say that it is a source of satisfaction and gratification to the allotment-holders of Scotland. As one of the representatives of a very large industrial constituency in the city of Glasgow, I think that that is peculiarly the case in a constituency such as mine, where, like some other Members who have spoken to-day, I am the honorary president of several allotment-holders' associations. It is very gratifying to know that we are to have the opportunity of obtaining the advantages to be conferred by this Bill. The Bill itself is a simple Measure to empower Scottish local authorities to provide allotments. It is in no sense whatever a compulsory Measure. That, I think, has never suggested itself to the minds of the Glasgow authorities, and I do not know why the sister city in the
East of Scotland has been, perhaps, more careful. This Measure will remove a difficulty which was raised in connection with Section 18 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, which was understood to provide a sum of £4,000 for the provision or assistance of allotments in Scotland, but which, by its phraseology, was found not to be applicable for that purpose.
The object of the present Bill is to remove that difficulty. It is a single Clause Bill, and is backed by Members of all parties. It is also in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish plot-holders and of the Scottish National Allotment Union. I hope that the Bill is intended to cover, and will cover, all the benefits that have been received by the English allotment holders under the Measure introduced last year by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who then explained its terms in a most lucid way to the thorough satisfaction of everyone in the House, so that the Bill was passed without a Division. I presume we may assume that all the benefits which accrue under that Measure are to be received by the Scottish allotment holders under this Bill. The desirability of supporting and assisting allotment holders is not, I think, disputed by anyone, but is supported by Members in every quarter of the House.
Reference has been made to-day to the benefit of their health that the allotment holders derive from their work in the open air, but, in addition to that, there is the educational aspect, which may have been overlooked. For instance, there are the youths who come to assist their fathers and mothers in tending their allotments, because the allotment-holders are not only men. In my constituency there are some women allotment-holders, and I would like to mention to the House that it was a woman allotment-holder who won the first prize in the competition among the association of plot-holders in the North-West part of our city. These parents are accompanied by their children, who assist them in tending their allotments, and who acquire a taste for work on the soil and see there demonstrated in practice what they have learned in theory at school. They learn from nature that it is only gradualism that can achieve results, and that force and violence cannot lead to success. It
will also engender patriotism. The cry of "Back to the land" and the scheme of emigration are useless without learning how to plant, how to hoe, and, to some extent, how to reap, and also the handling of tools, so that when the opportunity arises for them either to go on to the land in this country or to go to some of our Dominions or elsewhere, they do not go as strangers. Sending youths abroad without instruction of that sort is like throwing a man into the sea and expecting him to reach land without having taught him to swim. These, I think, can be taught very well by allotments. Allotment-holders, I believe, are also entitled to the gratitude of the general community for introducing a note of colour into the dismal surroundings of cities, which is very much appreciated.
The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) referred to some of them sitting under their own fig tree or vine. I do not know about fig trees, but I have in my constituency a vinery on one of the allotments in which a man can go if he likes and sit under the finest vines I have seen, bar none, in my part of the country. The money that may have to be spent in assisting allotments is well spent. It is not spent on sport alone, but it increases production throughout the country. It was said at a meeting of plot-holders in Glasgow that during the War the Glasgow section produced vegetables, flowers and fruit to the value of £30,000, which was a very considerable addition to the food required by the nation at that time. I would ask the House to support the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely there can be few occasions which afford a better illustration of the necessity for Home Rule for Scotland than this, and I rather gathered from a remark of the Mover of the Bill that some of that light was dawning on him. We have here a Measure agreed to in principle, and I trust in detail, by every section of the House. It concerns Scotland alone. It is purely a local authorities enabling Bill, and it has certainly been two years delayed. The hon. Member who represents Conservative contentment on the other side of the House said the allotment movement had been in existence, I think, since 1845.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: Earlier than that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It was considerably earlier than that. Legislation was passed in this House as early as 1819.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: In 1603. Francis Bacon was a great advocate, of allotments.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I desire to confine my remarks, so far as possible, to Scottish affairs, and to cite only Scottish authorities, and I am surprised at an eminent archaeological authority presuming to cite a man like Roger Bacon.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: No, Francis Bacon. He did it at the instigation of James VI of Scotland and I of England.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I remember rightly, that was the gentleman who left Edinburgh to shed some radiance and light upon the English people, unlike a follower of his who left some centuries afterwards and came to this House and shed no radiance here at all. I support this Bill from a point of view somewhat different from that of the hon. Member. He said this would bring contentment to the people of Scotland.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: What I said was that the allotment movement generally brought contentment to those who engaged in the occupation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member's correction suits me far better than the original statement I thought he had made. The allotment movement as a whole brings contentment to the people, and as a logical development of that, he said that led to Conservatism, and therefore he supported it. Every Measure brought into this House which would increase contentment among the people will, I am certain, be enthusiastically supported by every hon. Member opposite. It is contentment we are after, but as things are now it is discontent that makes the world go round. Discontent is a much more valuable asset in society to-day than a mere classic contentment with conditions that the hon. Member continues to support. One of the chief reasons why I have always supported allotments is this. I have seen strikes beaten for lack of food. I have seen lock-outs succeed for lack of food. I have seen strikes won after we got a large enough food production to enable the working classes to fight for a longer time those who sought to batter down their wages and conditions, and if I could
see the mining areas, for example, producing food in large enough quantities I would have no fear whatever for the result when next an attempt is made to break down the miners standard of living. One of the strongest reasons for supporting a very rapid extension of the allotment movement is the fact that it puts some sections of the working classes into a better economic condition to resist aggression upon them.
The hon. Member made some complimentary remarks in regard to his party because of their activities in food production and allotments. He did not specify any occasion but threw a sort of general observation in the hope that it would get into the Scottish Press to-morrow morning. May I remind him that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland withdrew their compulsory powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, whereby land was compulsorily taken for allotments, and held for allotments, on the 25th March, 1921, whereas the English Board of Agriculture did not withdraw their compulsory powers until 1923. The Scottish Board of Agriculture was so anxious to smash up the allotments movement because it seemed to interfere with the rights of private ownership in land that they withdrew their compulsory powers and were the means of evicting I do not know how many allotment holders from the land.
I should be greatly obliged to the Secretary of State for Scotland if he could give the House some reliable figures as to the number of allotment holders in Scotland. We have never been able to get the figures. We get the figures for England only. The Departmental Committee on Allotments, whose Report I have before me, which was appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary for Scotland, give us the figures of allotment holders in England. The number of allotments in England in 1920 was 1,330,000, but we only get an estimate for Scotland based on returns received from town councils and 50 selected parish councils, the Committee pointing out that these returns must not be regarded as complete. They only give us, on page 10 of the Report, 40,525 allotments for. Scotland. That is a gross under-estimate of the number of allotments in existence, even around our big cities, and I think
it would be very valuable if the Secretary of State for Scotland, in replying, could give us some authentic information.
I do not think that the option which is given in the Bill will move some of the town councils in the matter of providing allotments. A city council like that of Edinburgh is not likely to be moved. If a city council can send down a deputation from Edinburgh to lobby Members of this House against a very reasonable trifling Measure of this kind, what on earth are they likely to do when a definite motion is put before the Edinburgh City Council to levy a penny rate in order to extend the allotment movement? I do not think that this Bill will extend very greatly the number of allotments so long as there is security of tenure for the allotment holder, and so long as the Board of Agriculture in Scotland does not take an active part from the food production point of view in pushing allotments and compelling town councils, county councils and other authorities, to go in for allotments and, if necessary, to make it mandatory.
So long as the Board of Agriculture for Scotland does not take up this business seriously, only a comparatively small number of people will get adequate facilities for small holdings, at any rate in the neighbourhood of our large towns. I am not dealing now with the question of the £4,000; that is an old song. I think that episode is typical of the way in which the Board of Agriculture for Scotland allows itself to be, shall I say, browbeaten by the Treasury? Here was had a vote of £4,000 a year. I agree that technically it was for propaganda in regard to small holdings. It was voted by this House in an Act of Parliament, and we never got one penny of it. For five years that money has been in the hands of the Treasury, and the Scottish Board of Agriculture never came to this House for an amending Act. Protests and appeals from all sides of the House were useless. I suggest that that is typical of the attitude of the Board of Agriculture towards the production of food, either by small holdings or allotments in Scotland. I support this Bill and hope it will pass unanimously, but I trust the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) will not think that there is any agreement on these benches
with the proposition he put forward that spare-time allotments on a small scale are any substitute for a vigorous development of a small holdings policy.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: What I meant was that a first essential was the allotment, and then we could develop further small holdings.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. and gallant Friend. I have pleaded with this House and with successive Secretaries for Scotland to give the House a report on what has happened in the Orkney Islands, but I cannot drag out the information. I cannot get the information either by question in this House or in any other way. The hon. Member who represents the Orkney Islands, and those of us who have been there, can say what has happened, but we cannot get anything out of the Scottish Office as to why it is that agriculture and small holdings are prosperous in the Orkney Islands and nowhere else in Scotland, and as to why it is that when people begin to operate food production on a co-operative basis and do the thing in a really businesslike way they can capture markets and beat the Danes, as the Orcadians do, and as is done at Leith so far as eggs are concerned. We cannot get anything out of the Board of Agriculture, and we cannot get any propaganda push. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is looking for satisfactory methods of spending the £4,000 in propaganda, he could not do better than to popularise all over Scotland, and particularly the North-West of Scotland, the methods by which the Orcadians have risen from starvation to comparative plenty.

Major MacANDREW: I should like to say a word in support of the Bill. When I heard that a Scottish Allotments Bill was to be introduced, I hoped that it would be on similar lines to the English Bill brought in last year, and when I saw this Bill I was in some respects rather disappointed with its shortcomings. The question of allotments has the hearty support of Members of all sides. I do not want to deal with the merit of allotments, as such, their value as a means of healthy recreation and also as a means of increasing the food supply. My reason for saying
that the Bill does not go far enough is because of the lack of security of tenure. There was a meeting last Saturday of the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders at Dunfermline. It represents about 10,000 members which, of course, is only a portion of the allotment holders of Scotland. The annual Report, which was presented by the secretary, conveyed the general impression of the position in Scotland as far as allotments are concerned; and this is what was said:
There are probably fewer allotments than a year ago, not because allotment holders have given them up, but because they have been driven out, frequently in the most callous manner, by short-sighted and narrow-minded local authorities. The great obstacle to the development of the movement is lack of security.
That, I think, is the problem. In my own constituency in Kilmarnock there are numerous allotments. The authorities there understand and take an interest in the movement, but it would appear, from what the secretary of the Scottish National Union said, that there are parts of Scotland where the same interest is not taken. As the Bill does not appear to make any provision to increase security of tenure, my first impulse when I read it was to move an instruction to this effect:
That the Committee be empowered to incorporate in the Bill such provisions of the Allotment Act, 1925, and to make such Amendments to the Allotment Act (Scotland), 1922, as they may think fit.
It, however, struck me that the Bill in its present short form would perhaps be taken up by the Government, and in that way become law, whereas if any attempt was made to bring it more into line with the English Bill of last year, our over-anxiety might have the reverse effect, and the Bill might never reach the Statute Book. The lack of security is not going to be overcome by this Bill, and, in my judgment, that is rather unfortunate. Let me just say a word about the problem of the penny rate which seems to have caused a certain amount of misunderstanding in the House, and also in Scotland as well. We all agree that it is very desirable all schemes of allotments should run on a paying basis, and it is also very desirable that a local authority should be encouraged to support a scheme, and, if it is not running as a financial success, to take a certain amount of money from the
rates in order to meet the deficit. I doubt very much whether the whole rate of one penny would have to be levied for this purpose. It is very unlikely indeed. It seems very necessary to give local authorities some encouragement in this matter because the figure given last year, when the English Bill was introduced, was to the effect that there were double the number of allotment holders in this country since the War, whereas the acreage under allotments had only increased by 13 per cent. Anything that will encourage local authorities to increase the area for allotments is very desirable.
So far as the English Bill is concerned, there are other differences. For instance it proposed to give loans to associations; that is not of much account. Also they are to take note of town planning. The development of towns cannot be foreseen. In my own constituency there is one allotment garden which has long been going on, but the erection of high houses on the south side has depreciated it very much. Town planning must be a matter so much of conjecture that it is hardly a practicable consideration. I hope the Bill will get a Second Reading. I am sorry there is no provision to increase the security of tenure, but on the whole I hope the Measure will receive the support of Members of all sides of the House.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. BOOTHBY: There are just one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) with which I should like to deal. He referred to the success of the co-operative system amongst the farmers of Orkney. I have a little experience of the Orkneys, and I think I can explain why they have been so much more successful in the co-operative system than elsewhere. It is the same old story. Wherever you get a small community gathered together in a particular area producing primarily for export, and with one port of export, it makes co-operation so much easier. That is why they do it in Denmark.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that this success of the Orkneys is of comparatively recent date, and that before they began to co-operate in marketing their goods they were in the same degree of starvation as agriculturists are elsewhere?

Mr. BOOTHBY: I quite agree with the hon. Member; that is a fact. I am pointing out that it is easier for them to co-operate because they are producing primarily for export and because they are a small community. The other point which I would like to deal with for a moment is this. The hon. Member referred to the grant of £4,000 which was voted by this House about five years ago, and which has never been received May I point out that we have reason to be grateful to the Treasury for what it has done in connection with steel houses for Scotland. That was in the nature of a special grant. If the hon. Member is seriously contemplating conducting a campaign for the expenditure of more money by the Treasury in Scotland, he will have my willing co-operation. I should like to deal also with one or two of the implications of this Bill. I welcome the fact that no obligatory duty is imposed by it upon local authorities in Scotland. I think it should be left to them to decide individually how many allotments there should be and the methods under which the system is developed.
I think the Bill has an immense value in this respect. It may do something to develop that sympathy between town and country which is so sadly lacking in Scotland to-day. Those of us who represent both urban and rural constituencies know that there is a most unfortunate lack of sympathy, almost hostility, between those who live in the urban districts and those who live in the country. The urban inhabitant has no sympathy whatever with the farmer in his difficulties. He does not care what happens to the farmer. If it rains he does not mind—not much. I must say that I hope that in the early stages of this scheme the allotment holders will have a few set-backs. I hope that in the early stages their crops will be destroyed and wrecked by the rains and storms which we so frequently have in Scotland. Then they will be able to sympathise with the farmer whose whole crop has been completely wrecked by the storms and other inclemencies of the weather. After that sympathy, which is so desirable, has been gained, we shall all join in the fervent wish that both of them, farmer and allotment-holder, will be favoured by good weather and will be able to produce to the utmost.
This Bill may also have another very desirable effect. It may inspire in the town dweller such an affection for the country, and such a desire to continue his agricultural experiments, that he will ultimately be induced to abandon urban life altogether and to take to a country life. We might, therefore, have in future a drift from the town to the country, instead of the present lamentable drift from the country into the town. We have, roughly, a million allotment-holders in England to-day, and we consider that to be good. There are no figures for Scotland. But in France they have over two and a half million holders of holdings under two acres, which represents over 3,000,000 acres. We have a good deal to learn, as has been said, from the Continental system of small holdings and allotments. I think it would be well if the Ministry of Agriculture or the Scottish Office sent someone to the Continent to study the methods by which they keep these allotments going, and made that information available to the allotment-holders created under this Bill.
I agree profoundly with the remarks made by the late Solicitor-General for England, the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), when he spoke on the English Allotments Bill last summer. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the whole system of production was top-heavy on the industrial side, and that we must try to create a larger agricultural producing population in order to balance it. He pointed out the fallacy of the Liberal idea of wealth. He said that the Liberal thought that unless one produced something which could be bought by someone overseas, who then sent it back to us in the form of food, no wealth had been created. He held that that was not by any means the case, that anything which is produced and consumed in this country without its leaving these shores is so much wealth and so much productive power and so much value to the country, and that it is not in the least necessary that the thing produced in this country should ever go overseas or be sent back. I agree with the hon. and learned Member in that view. I hope that this Bill will give just a little further push to the rebalancing of the system of production
in this country which must take place in the next 30 or 40 years. It is undoubtedly top-heavy.
There is one other aspect of this question which is intimately connected with the allotment movement. That is the continuing reorganisation of the heavy industries of this country, whichh has been going on during the last two years and Nvlhich will have to go on during the next 40 or 50 years. We are gradually approaching a system of specialised production in this country. To take an example from my own constituency, in a small town like Fraserburgh, you find one factory engaged in producing a special type of very finely wrought tool. It provides most of the pneumatic tools used in industry in this country and it is working about quarter-time at present. There you have a factory in a completely rural areas far apart from the smoke and the hurlyburly of the city, and as time goes on, I am convinced there will be a spread of industry and of factories outwards into the country. As factories become more specialised, they tend to move away from the towns where they are now huddled together, engaged in an almost hopeless competitive tussle, without any real organisation and accompanying this tendency we shall find an extension of garden cities and allotments. It was with this in mind that I pleaded with the Government the other day and asked them to consider in the future the extension of certain kinds of credits to industries which proposed to reorganise themselves on those lines. May I quote one remark which Mr. Henry Ford makes in his book published the other day. He says:
When industry and farming are fully reorganised they will be complementary, one to the other.
That is quite true, and we are gradually reaching the stage where we shall get more and more workers away from the filth and turmoil of the big cities where the housing conditions are bad, where there is no properly systemised production, where specialisation on proper lines is rendered almost impossible. You will have those industries extending to the country as I have described, and in that extension, the allotment schemes will be of immense value. In Scotland we are well favoured in that respect because we have longer light and when we have factories organised on the highest scientific lines and the workers
getting free at five o'clock, they will have time to go to their allotments and take a practical interest in those allotments. It may be the means of increasing the production of this country three, four and even ten-fold. We ought to get in the not far distant future, a far greater measure of co-operation between agriculture and industry than that which exists to-day. I hope we shall see the day when the industrial worker will be able to spend a large part of his time in cultivating the soil as well as in attending the factory.
Every advance in mechanical devices for the production of specialised parts, is tending more and more in that direction. We want to reduce production to a fine art; we want to strike a balance between town and country and to instruct the worker in both sides of production. I believe we shall gradually do it and that this Bill is just another step—perhaps not a very large one—towards that ideal of an independent self-supporting property owning democracy which some of us in this House keep steadily before our eyes. It is an ideal that may not be realised for many years to come, but if we pursue it with vigour and courage I believe it will be realised before the end of this century.

Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE: As an English Member I desire to support the Bill. It is a little unusual for an English Member to take an interest in Scottish affairs, but as we have recently heard Scottish Members showing an intense interest in matters connected with England, I think we are at liberty to take part in a discussion of this kind. The Bill has at least one very unusual feature. It does not seek to take any money from the English taxpayer, and as we have been accustomed since the days of King Jamie to various inroads on the English Exchequer, for that reason alone it merits favourable consideration.
The speeches in support of it have been of an unusual character also in that they have not contained a quotation from Burns. I desire to remind the House of the factors in connection with allotments which are of special interest to the allotment-holder. There is first of all the question of the value of foreign importation. Importations of eggs amounted to £16,500,000; of potatoes, £4,750,000; onions, £2,500,000; tomatoes, £4,000,000; and fruits, various, £32,750,000. I think
the House will agree with me that anything that we can do to limit these importations from the Continent is of the greatest assistance, not only to Scotland, but also to England, because we are at the mercy of the foreign producer. We have no control whatever over him, as we should have if he were an English profiteer, at whom hon. Members opposite are always girding. These foreign producers are always outside our reach, and I cordially support anything which will increase allotments and, therefore, diminish the imports of foreign produce, over which we have no control, not only in regard to price, but also in regard to quality.
I strongly deprecate the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), when he supported allotments on account of their influence in favour of strikes. If you establish that as a reason for supporting allotments, it brings into an excellent movement the whole question of the bad relations between employers and employés, and whatever we do, either for or against the allotment movement, we ought not to introduce that kind of politics into it. It will do the movement incalculable harm, and for this reason I, for one, strongly deprecate any mention of strikes or industrial unrest being brought in as an argument in favour of the allotment movement. As an English Member who is very interested in English allotments, I beg to ask the English Members of the House to support the Scottish Members in getting their Bill.

Mr. WRIGHT: I shall support this Bill for several reasons, firstly, because I have always advocated since I came here every conceivable method which would add to our food supply, and in so far as the extension of allotments will further that object, I welcome it most heartily. In the second place, however small it may be, it is another step towards the ideal of Home Rule for Scotland, which I hope is not very far away.
The hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Boothby) referred to the recent book published by Mr. Ford. I should like to refer to a previous book dealing with the question as to how much time is required by an individual workman to produce the wheat necessary to sustain him for a year. Mr.
Ford declared that 25 days a year were sufficient to produce the wheat for his bread supply for a whole year, and while I am supporting this Bill, I am not sup porting it because I think it is going to usher in the millennium, nor do I support it for the same reason as the Mover of the Second Reading. If I rightly understood him, he thought the ideal was to provide recreation for a man, after he had been ploughing for 10 hours in the day, in an allotment. My father happened to be a farm labourer, and in my earlier years I used to rise at half-past four in the morning and work till seven at night. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I do not think there is very much to cheer about in that. I very often had to work in the garden until 10 at night, and think we ought to have reached a state of society in which that particular kind of ideal should not be pursued.
Some day, no doubt, we shall aim at the ideal, and realise it, of first ascertaining what are the needs of the nation, and then we shall endeavour to supply them, in so far as it is possible, from our own soil. I am satisfied that a very much larger produce can be obtained, and will be obtained, from the soil than we are obtaining at the present time. There is a very considerable demand for allotments in Scotland, a demand that has not yet been satisfied, and there is a very considerable quantity of land in Scotland that formerly produced foodstuffs but which is now out of cultivation. There is also a considerable quantity of land which has not yet been brought into cultivation, and we have a very large and serious industrial problem in Scotland. Therefore, any Measure, however small it may be, which will help to satisfy these demands, we welcome most heartily. So far as some of these smaller commodities are concerned, such as eggs, butter, cheese, fruit, vegetables and honey, I think they could be produced on allotments, and, if I may add, small holdings, to the satisfaction of all the people of Scotland and would reduce to a considerable extent the evils under which we are suffering at the present time. Therefore, I welcome this Measure to-day.
I agree, further, with what has been said by the hon. Member below the Gangway that we are very much lop-sided in
our industrial system, that the whole tendency for the last 150 years has been to flock to the great towns and cities, and to leave the country. I think that at no very distant date we shall go back again in this respect, and allotments offer one avenue, at any rate, whereby men can obtain experience for the larger fields of the industry in the years to come. I do not see any signs of any vast improvement so far as solving the unemployed problem is concerned. In days gone by, in certain parts of the North of England, I well remember, when the miners were working two or three days a week, the men were often able to supplement their earnings to provide for their household needs, by working in their gardens and allotments, from which they obtained very high results. Indeed, I think it is true to say that the highest possible results from the soil have been obtained from allotments and small holdings. As a matter of fact, the men who have produced the largest quantities of potatoes per acre in this country are not the professional potato growers, but the miners in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and that is, of course, from allotments, gardens and small holdings. Therefore, I welcome this Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: There is one point, I think, to which, perhaps, full notice has not been given this afternoon, and that is the trouble that local authorities have had in the past in dealing with their allotment questions. As a member of the Glasgow Town Council, I know we had continual trouble in getting the right class of peopla to take the allotments. By that I mean that when the council got certain ground, the people who were utilising that ground were people who could well afford to pay-for ground of their own, and the result of this Bill will be to give to the local authorities a chance to get ground, so that those who really require it in the very lowest parts of our big cities may be able to utilise and get the benefit of it. It seems that in Glasgow it is the case that the corporation are giving up the allotment ground in Queen's Park because the trouble is that the people who would benefit by allotments to-day have no chance of getting in.
I do think that this Bill, by giving to local authorities the power and right to rate will bring about a better condition
in the allotment plans of the various cities. I do agree with previous speakers when they plead in this House, as they do elsewhere, that the facilities to give the people more land should be extended and given more consideration to. Those of is who are employed in labour know what a benefit it is for a man who has worked in a foundry during the day to be able to get out for a few hours in the evening, even if he does not work the land—to be able to sit whilst either his son, or daughter, or friends are working on their particular allotments. There is an atmosphere of peace that comes into his mind that cannot but affect his day's work. I am certain that all parties in this House will agree with this Bill, and the object of it. It will bring facilities to the people of this country to more and more appreciate what after all is the greatest benefit man can have, that is free open spaces. Therefore, I have great pleasure in associating myself with this Bill, and trusting it will go through.

Captain BOURNE: I feel some diffidence in pleading for what is a Scottish Measure, but, as the Member responsible for the Allotments Bill of last year, I would like to ask all parties to give the present Bill a Second Reading. It is within the recollection of the House that last year I stated that I did not feel competent to deal with this question of Scotland because there is a very great difference in the laws of the two countries. After hearing the speeches on this Bill, and after the conversations I have had with Scottish friends, I feel convinced of the wisdom of proceeding with the Bill. I am assured by the Scottish Association of Allotment Hollers that this Bill will, in fact, give a very great stimulus to the development of the allotment movement in that country. Anything that will tend to stimulate the movement for allotments is one that is worthy of the wholehearted support of this House. A previous speaker referred just now to the fact that our civilisation in this country, and also North of the Tweed, is getting rather top-heavy, and that we have in the last century developed a marvellous industry at the expense of the agricultural community.
If one looks at the Census Returns it will be noticed that the present agricultural population is very small, and has
hardly altered during the last century. If you get a movement of "Back to the land," it is well to look on all sides, because it is no use whatever putting people on the land who have not really had any experience either of the hardships or disappointments which they will have to experience. The hon. Member who recently spoke on the opposite side put forward some of his experiences as a boy on the land. But I can assure the House that the smallholder will find life even more hard than suggested. It is a mistaken kindness to encourage people to go back to the land who have no idea of the hardness of the life, or not to let them know that they are going to endure long hours, mud, and bad weather, although there is the compensation and pleasure of by one's own skill getting something out of nature, and making two blades of grass to grow where one grew before, if they are prepared to face the dreariness and drudgery that that entails.
I feel the allotment movement may do something to encourage a love for the land amongst others of the population. It may act as a sort of sieve whereby we may find out which of our urban dwellers have a real taste for rural life and a real capacity for it, and which of them, under a system of small holdings, would make suitable occupiers, and would be likely to succeed and prosper. It is cruelty to send a man on to the land if he knows nothing about it, and it is worse than cruelty to send a man who does not realise what he has got to face, and who is likely to fail when he gets there. Possibly he has been taken from a job, at which he was successful, to be put on to one that may only break his heart. It is because it is through the allotment movement that we may build up in this country a peasantry which we do not possess at present, and which is at the bottom of the success of the agricultural systems of Denmark and other Continental countries, that I welcome the allotment movement, and I beg the House to support this Bill as being one more step towards reconstituting an English peasantry.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): In the first place, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Commander Fanshawe) on his success in obtaining through the ballot an opportunity for this Bill. It is sometimes happily said of a Bill presented to this
House that there is a very large measure of agreement about it. I am sure those who have listened to the Debate to-day will feel that this proposal to increase and encourage allotment holdings in this country will receive the general support of Members in all quarters of the House. This Bill is the outcome of a conference recently held in Edinburgh with the Association of Allotment Holders and representatives of all parties in Scotland interested in this movement. At that stage I was not able to say to them that the Government could introduce a Bill on this question, but I urged that the opportunity should be taken of the ballot to get a Bill presented by a private Member, and said that should that effort be successful I would do my best to carry the support of the Government. I am happy to say that I am in a position now to accord the fullest support of the Government to this Bill. It is a very happy circumstance that, following upon the Bill introduced last Session by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), we are now able to extend these provisions to Scotland. I am sure also that those who are interested in the allotment movement are under a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Oxford, because what he did certainly facilitated the handling of this problem by quickening an interest in it.
I trust local authorities in Scotland will realise, as hon. Members in this House have realised, the importance of this question, and that we will have their support and assistance in dealing with it. In our great cities there are many people who have not only obtained healthful recreation, but have brought some advantage to their families by the production of vegetables and other things on allotments. I hope that more and more of the great local authorities in Scotland will take stock of the situation, and will, when they are purchasing land and devising extensions of their cities, include in those schemes a provision for ground which may be worked as allotments. It is sometimes said that allotments are confined to one particular class, and are not available for the general community. On these grounds some local authorities are a little shy of spending the ratepayers' money. I think, however, that there are so many
obvious advantages to be gained for the health and the contentment of the general community that this movement is amply justified, and should receive the support of the local authorities.
There is one problem which may have to be examined during the Committee Stage, and it is the question as to whether the penny rate is really an obligatory rate or whether it is permissive. I am not a lawyer, and I must depend upon legal advice as to the actual wording of this Section. It might well be that some local authorities would find, that the full penny rate was more than they desired to impose, or even more than was actually necessary, to advance the particular interests of allotments. Of course I speak with reservation, but I think it is a question which we must reserve for the Committee Stage, and there we must examine it very carefully indeed.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) put to me some questions as to the number of allotment holders in Scotland, but I am afraid I have not got any very recent figures on that subject. I find that in 1923 it was estimated, and I believe this estimate came from the Allotment Holders Association, that something like 35,000 allotments, covering some 2,000 acres of ground, existed in Scotland. It may be that these are not complete figures, and indeed it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain these figures except by the goodwill of the local authorities. If I may say so I think the passage of this Bill, and the more direct linking up of this movement with the local authorities, may enable us in the future to get more accurate figures than we have been able to do in the past.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is this figure of 35,000 the number of allotment holders who are members of associations and who are linked up with this movement

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that it is an estimate of the total number of allotment holders, but. I am not certain. There is only one other subject which was referred to to-day to which I would like to refer, and that was the great advantage which had accrued in co-operative development in regard to the production of eggs and similar products in certain districts in Scotland. I am satisfied that in this case the people
concerned have been most responsive to the efforts made to introduce the co-operative principle, and it is indeed one of the best object lessons in agricultural co-operation which we have had. I would only like to say in passing that, as one who has been associated for many years with the work of the agricultural co-operative movement, I would desire that this example would be followed in many other parts of Scotland. Indeed, on all sides of the House I am sure we are agreed that it is by the propagation of these methods that the small producer is going to get the best advantage from his labour and in that way he is going to contribute in a large measure to meet the needs of the people.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As that is now the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, will he undertake to publish the Report of the representatives sent by his Department two and a half years ago to the Orkneys showing the benefits of co-operative marketing?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not quite sure that I have that report—I believe the gentleman who went is very seriously ill—but I will make inquiries. At any rate, enough is known by those who are interested in this problem of the advantages of co-operation, and I am certain that the Debate in the House to-day has shown that on all sides there is approval of a Measure which is intended to assist, and which it is earnestly hoped will assist, in the future., all allotments in Scotland. As far as I am concerned, I shall do everything that I cart to facilitate the passage of the Bill.

Commander WILLIAMS: I hope that I may be allowed to say one or two words on this matter. In the first place, I think it is essentially a thing in which Scotland ought to be brought up to the level of England and have exactly the same privileges and advantages that we have in England to-day. My real reason for intervening, however, is that I believe I am the only Member of this House who has the privilege of serving on one of the committees of the Royal Horticultural Society. Possibly, therefore, I do knew something of the details about gardening in general at the present time, and I would like to emphasise the extraordinary work that these allotments have done in humanising many of our great town districts.
We have has a wonderful example given us by the Mover of this Bill, showing how much good it has done him. I would like in just two or three words to say that I do hope that in looking into this question we will not always consider only the food-raising value of these allotments.
I want to see as much food grown as possible, and I want to see as much interest taken in allotments from that point of view as possible. But I do say that you can increase the prosperity and the desire for these allotments if you will also encourage people who have allotments to grow flowers as well. They can use them for brightening their homes and for growth of flowers and vegetables you can gradually get a movement which, if it is successful, can be used as a stepping-stone towards and for the further development of small holdings. For that reason, I welcome this Bill, and hope that it will have a most successful passage through this House.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time" Put, and agree to.

Orders of the Day — TOWN TENANTS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am sure all hon. Members in the House will have some sympathy with me in having to introduce this Measure at a quarter to Four on a Friday afternoon. The objects of the Bill, as stated in the Memorandum, will, I think, make it pretty clear what we who are promoting the Bill are asking the House to agree to. They are as follow:

"(i) compensation for improvements made by them which increase the value of the premises occupied by them;
(ii) compensation for unreasonable disturbance of their occupancy;
(iii) continuation of possession of their premises on reasonable and fair terms."

I should like to point out that, this Bill is largely based on principles
which have already been, accepted by Parliament in previous Acts, notably the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, the Agricultural Holdings Act, the Rent Restriction Acts, and similar Statutes passed with a view to adjusting on an equitable basis the position of tenants in relation to their landlords. The history of this movement is as follows: In 1906 a Town Tenants' League was formed to try to bring about reform in the conditions attached to the granting of leases as between the owner of property and the tenant. This has always been a nonparty Measure, supported by Members in all quarters of the House, and in all probability that is why it has never reached the Statute Book, because, in another place, the Noble Lord the Earl of Birkenhead, speaking on another Bill Whicth also was a non-party Measure, gave that as the very reason why it had never been passed into law. It had too many friends, and, therefore, had never had a real chance.
In 1913, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) took this matter up very seriously, and we who were then working on behalf of this league thought that we were really going to get something done. The right hon. Gentleman gave it his blessing, anyhow, and, later, Lord Long, who was then Mr. Walter Long, and member of the party opposite to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, also gave the Measure his blessing. It was, perhaps, not quite as strong a Bill as we should have liked, but, at any rate, we thought we were really going to get something done. In 1920, the Government of the day set up a Select. Committee to inquire into the whole question, but, unfortunately, as with many other recommendations of Select Committees and Royal Commissions, after we had received the recommendations of that Committee nothing was done. That is usually the fate of the recommendations of these Commissions.
The position at the moment is that the tenant of premises is dependent entirely on the good will of the owner of the property, when his lease expires, as to whether he will be allowed to continue his tenancy or not. The value of the business to the tenant depends entirely on whether he has a reasonable chance of renewing
his lease at the end of the term; in fact, the goodwill of his business may absolutely depend upon that. What is the position to-day? In most cases the tenants, particularly of smaller properties like shop properties, are absolutely dependent on the mercy of the landlords, and I have thousands of cases that I could quote, though, of course, there is not time to do so this afternoon, to prove that at the moment great pressure is being brought to bear, particularly on the smaller tenants, to compel them either to pay extortionate rents or to leave the premises.
I know it will be argued that hard cases make bad law; we have heard that many times before, and it is rather singular that the majority of the hon. Members who have intimated to me that they are going to oppose this Bill belong to the legal profession. I would like, however, to quote at least one hard case, just to show that there really is something behind the agitation in favour of this Bill. This is a later that I have received from a man in Liverpool. He writes:
In 1916 I took a small lock-up shop that originally cost of £98 to build. It is only a shanty, with a leaky tin roof, and had been let at rents round about £30 per annum. I got a lease for 10 years at £60 per annum, and afterwards the landlord wrote and said that be would require £120 per annum for the shanty and that I would have to be responsible for the repairing of the roof.
That is a very hard case, and we have many others on equal terms. It is time something was done to bring about a reform in this matter.
The case for the Bill was very admirably put by the secretary to the Town Tenants League in a memorandum. This is what the League claim:
Our claim, put briefly, is not for an arbitrary restriction of rental, but for such legislative reform as will enable a trader to negotiate with his landlord without his hands being tied, and in such a position that the landlord must realise that if he does not conic to terms upon a reasonable basis the terms of renewal or of compensation, in the event of dispossession, will be determined by an impartial tribunal as between the parties.
We want to make it clear at the very outset that we recognise the position of landlords. There are very many business men to-day who have invested a great deal of capital in business
property. There are other business men who are executors and trustees, and an obligation rests upon them in both instances to endeavour to obtain for their properties the highest possible rental. At the same time we also have to remember that in a very large number of cases the increased rental value that attaches to a business property accrues in consequence of the development of the business and the creation and enhancement of the goodwill. In spite of that, a landlord, near the expiration of a lease, comes along to the tenant and says, "You have been paying me £250 a year, but in future I am going to ask you for £500 because you yourself have created the value in that property." We are not ignoring the fact that in many cases the increased value of the tenancy is due in a measure to causes outside the scope either of the landlord or of the tenant, and we have tried to draft the Bill on fair terms as between the landlord and the tenant.
I would refer hon. Members to Clause 13, which lays it down quite clearly that the deciding factor as to what is a fair rental, or whether the tenant has the right to a renewal of his lease, is vested in a tribunal. The instructions to the tribunal are that in deciding as to corn pensation, or whether there is a case made out for renewal, they have to take into consideration the length and character of the tenancy or occupation:

"(i) the length and character of the tenancy or occupation;
(ii) the then rental value of the premises in the open market;
(iii) whether the landlord wishes to terminate the tenancy in order to enter personally into possession;
(iv) the fact of notice to quit having been given in pursuance of any bona fide scheme of reconstruction or development, whether public or private;
(v) the date on which the tenant has received his notice to quit;
(vi) any claim by the tenant that the goodwill of his business has added to the letting value of the premises;
(vii) the existence or otherwise of alternative accommodation equally suitable in all respects."

What we are asking for is only reasonable and fair to the landlord and to the tenant. I have been told by hon. Members belonging to the same political party that if I do that I am preaching a Socialistic doctrine. I deny that emphatically. There is no Socialism about
me or any of my actions, and I want to say a word or two to some of the hon. Members who tell me my party stands for the defence of the rights of property. I do not for a moment subscribe to the opinion that that is so. The Conservative party never has stood for the unrestricted rights of property, but at present certain owners of property have unrestricted rights to charge whatever they can screw out of the tenant, and I think for the good name of the party I am proud to belong to a Second Reading ought to be given to the Bill.

Colonel APPLIN: I rise to second the Motion.
There may be some small anomalies in the drafting of the Bill which we cannot all agree to, but they will, of course, be dealt with in Committee, and will undoubtedly be eliminated. I would draw attention to Clause 12, which deals with the formation of the tribunal. Obviously that tribunal will not be a satisfactory one, but it would be quite easy to obtain a tribunal which would in every way be adequate to do justice alike to landlords and tenants. I know of numbers of cases which are unjust. For instance, a small shopkeeper has taken a little shop in a small town or village, and has fitted it up with a window. Then, gradually, as the business has been built up by his own enterprise and by his own initiative he has, perhaps, taken out the small panes and put in plate glass. He has enlarged the back, put in a larger counter, made a big Christmas display, and attracted a large number of customers to the shop. That business has been built up by his own energy and enterprise. Then the landlord comes along and says, "The rent you are paying is not enough. I must put up your rent." It is not fair that the man can be turned out of the shop, probably with no capital, because he has invested all his capital in the business, that the landlord should be allowed to take advantage of the capital that has been invested in the business, turn out the man and put in someone else. It is for these reasons that we are asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. RYE: Although I am prepared to agree that there are, in certain circumstances, hardships imposed upon a number of tenants, I cannot see my way to support this Bill. I do not think
this House would be justified in interfering with existing contracts. In 1886, 1887, 1888 and 1889 Select Committees of this House were set up to inquire into town holdings, and in each case these Committees reported that, in their considered opinion, there should be no interference with existing contracts. When the question of leasehold tenure came before the House in 1907, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who was then Prime Minister, said that there was no idea of interfering with existing contracts. Two months or so later, Lord Oxford, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that existing contracts would be rigidly respected as sacred, and that legislation must proceed with that for its starting point and underlying substance.
I hesitate to believe that this House will be of any different opinion from that expressed most definitely by the Select Committees to which I have referred, and from that which was expressed by the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that existing contracts, made by individuals of full age—

Mr. MacLAREN: rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question
be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. RYE: —should not be interfered with. However much I sympathise with leaseholders in certain directions, I cannot accept—

Mr. MacLAREN: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker, in moving "That the Question be now put"?

Mr. RYE: —the view that we should pass legislation of this kind for the cancellation of existing contracts.

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The renzaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock until Monday next (22nd February).